Collins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In planning decisions affecting children, their best interests must be treated as a primary consideration. The requirement is substantive rather than formal. A decision-maker need not use particular words or address the issue first in the document, provided the reasoning shows that the children’s interests were properly considered and were not treated as inherently less significant than other considerations. Those interests may be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other material considerations. The weight given to competing planning considerations remains a matter for the decision-maker, subject to irrationality. Reasons need address the principal controversial issues, but need not speculate about hypothetical future applications or every material consideration.

The claimants were Irish Travellers occupying caravans on agricultural land in Fylde. The Secretary of State, adopting the Inspector’s report, dismissed appeals against refusal of planning permission and upheld an enforcement notice requiring removal of the residential caravan use.

The claim under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenged the decision on two grounds. First, it was said that the best interests of the children living on the site had not been treated as a primary consideration. Secondly, it was argued that the Inspector and Secretary of State had failed to address the possibility that landscaping would remove visual harm after seven to ten years. The court also considered permission to appeal and costs.

1. The challenges were dismissed. Time was extended for the out-of-time section 289 application. The court refused permission to appeal on the best-interests issue.
2. The duty arising from section 11 of the Children Act 2004, read in light of Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the reasoning in ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4, required the best interests of affected children to be treated as a primary consideration in the planning decision. The obligation concerned substance, not form. It was unnecessary expressly to label the children’s interests as a primary consideration or to set them out before all other matters.
3. Read together, the Inspector’s report and the decision letter showed that the children’s accommodation, education and health needs had been considered. The decision-maker attributed significant weight to continuity of education and moderate weight to health needs. It was lawful to conclude that the substantial landscape and visual harm, together with highway-safety harm, cumulatively outweighed those interests. The decision-maker was not required to give the children’s interests greater weight, provided no other consideration was treated as inherently more significant.
4. The weight given to material planning considerations was a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker, subject to irrationality. The court was concerned with legality, not the merits. A wider claim concerning social isolation and the effects of eviction could not succeed where the matter had not been raised before the Inspector or Secretary of State; in any event, reasons need not refer to every material consideration.
5. The landscaping challenge also failed. The proposed screen would take seven to ten years to mature and would itself cause adverse effects. Its hypothetical future consequences were not material to the decision. The reasons, read with the Inspector’s report, adequately explained the principal controversial issues and satisfied the standard in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33.
6. Costs were summarily assessed at £7,180.20 plus agreed train fares of £560.20, subject to the detailed rulings on recoverable work, attendance and subsistence.

The judgment describes planning appeals determined by the Secretary of State after recovery of the appeals and an inquiry before a Planning Inspector. This court dismissed the statutory challenges and refused permission to appeal.