Taylor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

In conjoined appeals concerning adjoining development sites, an inspector may consider common planning issues together, but must assess each site’s planning merits, harm and site-specific circumstances separately. The decision letter is read as a whole; a conclusion expressed in common terms does not show that the sites were unlawfully rolled together where the reasoning distinguishes them.

For temporary permission, the inspector must address Circular 1/2006, including the expected substantial weight to unmet need where new sites may become available. The weight to be given remains a matter of planning judgment. An extended period for compliance with an enforcement notice is legally distinct from temporary permission but may address the same hardship and displacement concerns.

The appellant challenged an Inspector’s decision dated 13 October 2010 concerning two adjoining gypsy caravan sites at Heanley Lane, Hurley. The Inspector dismissed appeals against an enforcement notice and against the refusal of planning permission for the eastern site.

Ouseley J dismissed challenges under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in a judgment dated 22 March 2012 ([2012] EWHC 684 (Admin)). The appellant renewed the application for permission to appeal. The principal questions were whether the Inspector had unlawfully treated the two sites as one development, and whether he had failed properly to consider temporary planning permission in light of unmet need and possible future site provision.

Application refused. The grounds had no real prospect of success. The enforcement-notice challenge was a second appeal, for which no important point of principle or practice, or other compelling reason, had been shown. The planning-refusal challenge did not attract that second-appeal restriction, but the proposed grounds still lacked a real prospect of success.

1. Conjoined sites. The Inspector was entitled to hold one inquiry into the two adjoining sites and to consider matters common to both together. He nevertheless had to address the planning merits of each site individually.
2. Decision letter read as a whole. The alleged rolling together of the sites could not be established by focusing only on the opening sentence of paragraph 73. The Inspector had separately assessed the Green Belt impact, the visual harm, and the personal characteristics and accommodation needs associated with each site. The western site was more harmful in visual terms. The conclusion that the other considerations did not outweigh the Green Belt harm therefore applied separately to each proposal.
3. Very special circumstances. The relevant planning question was whether the site-specific circumstances of the occupants constituted very special circumstances which outweighed the identified harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. That question was common to both sites, although the answer could differ between them.
4. Temporary permission. The Inspector expressly addressed Circular 1/2006. The guidance contemplated substantial weight for unmet need where new sites were reasonably expected to become available. The Inspector explained why that consideration did not carry substantial weight in these cases. Whether the circumstances justified that weight was a matter of planning judgment. He also recognised that temporary occupation would be less harmful to the Green Belt.
5. Ground (g) relief. Temporary planning permission and an extension of time for compliance with an enforcement notice are legally distinct. However, an 18-month extension could relieve hardship and avoid unnecessary displacement while alternative accommodation and site provision were progressed. The Inspector’s solution was therefore a rational way of addressing the practical concern underlying the temporary-permission argument.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 12 December 2012, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2012] EWCA Civ 1891.
• High Court of Justice, Administrative Court — Ouseley J dismissed the appellant’s challenges under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2012] EWHC 684 (Admin).
• Planning Inspector — The Inspector dismissed appeals against the enforcement notice and refusal of planning permission in a decision letter dated 13 October 2010. He allowed the ground (g) appeals to the extent of granting 18 months for compliance.