Doran v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

In a planning challenge, an inspector’s decision must be read as a whole. Infelicitous wording does not establish an error of law if the determination shows that the inspector understood and applied the relevant policy. Guidance on temporary permission requires consideration of unmet need, likely planning changes and the reduced duration of harm. It does not require permission where serious environmental objections cannot be safeguarded by a limited period or conditions. An inspector may therefore dismiss an appeal after balancing unmet need, personal circumstances and the risk of homelessness against Green Belt and environmental harm, provided the conclusion is rationally open on the evidence.

Mr Felix Doran sought permission to use land in the Green Belt for static and touring traveller caravans. Central Bedfordshire District Council refused permission. Following a public inquiry, the Secretary of State dismissed the planning appeal. The Divisional Court, in a judgment given by Cranston J on 21 June 2010, refused an application to quash that decision.

The appeal concerned whether the Inspector had misunderstood the policy governing temporary planning permission, failed to take account of the council’s evidence concerning future site provision, or failed properly to consider temporary permission in light of unmet need and the risk of homelessness.

The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Pill gave the principal judgment, with which Lord Justice Etherton agreed. Lord Justice Patten agreed with the result but reached it by different reasoning.

1. Meaning of the decision letter. An inspector’s determination must be read as a whole. Where wording is difficult or infelicitous, the court should identify the meaning intended from the complete decision and the evidence and submissions considered. Pill LJ held that the final sentence of paragraph 60 did not show that the Inspector had disregarded the temporary-permission policy or treated unmet need as irrelevant.
2. Temporary permission. The Inspector had correctly set out the relevant policy test. In assessing a temporary permission, the decision-maker could consider unmet need, the prospect of future site provision, the limited duration of the harm, the occupants’ personal circumstances and environmental objections. The council’s evidence that permissions might emerge during the Development Plan Document process limited the extent of unmet need; it did not eliminate that consideration.
3. Planning merits. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the environmental objections were serious and could not be safeguarded by a limited-period permission or other conditions. Policy could in an appropriate case justify temporary permission where permanent permission was unjustified, but it did not compel such permission. The Inspector’s conclusion that very special circumstances did not exist was a planning judgment open to him.
4. Homelessness and earlier authority. Pill LJ considered the policy’s general intention to avoid homelessness where no alternative sites were available, referring to Wychavon District Council v the Secretary of State (2008 EWCA Civil 692). He held that the Inspector had sufficiently considered the relevant evidence and applied the correct test. The Inspector was also entitled to consider other Secretary of State decisions concerning nearby sites.
5. Alternative reasoning. Patten LJ considered that paragraph 60 did determine that the specific conditions for temporary permission were not satisfied. However, paragraph 61 contained a separate balancing exercise, including the prospects of homelessness and the environmental harm. Even if the Inspector had erred in paragraph 60, the outcome would have been the same.

No error of law was demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 July 2011, the appeal was dismissed: [2011] EWCA Civ 1798.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court: Cranston J refused the application to quash the Secretary of State’s decision on 21 June 2010.
• Secretary of State: An Inspector dismissed the appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission. The decision letter was dated 21 July 2009.
• Central Bedfordshire District Council: Planning permission was refused for the proposed caravan-site use in the Green Belt.