Taylor & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In conjoined planning appeals, an Inspector may issue a single decision letter dealing with common issues, provided that the letter fairly demonstrates that each appeal was individually considered and gives legally adequate reasons.

Temporary planning permission does not meet the assessed need for permanent gypsy sites, but the existence and likely permanence of a temporary site may be relevant to the urgency and weight of that need. A policy expectation to give substantial weight to unmet need does not compel that conclusion in every case.

In assessing very special circumstances for inappropriate Green Belt development, the decision-maker may take account of the occupants’ previous accommodation, the circumstances of their occupation and the lawfulness of the use. Those matters are relevant to weight, but are not necessarily determinative.

The appellants occupied two adjoining unauthorised gypsy and traveller sites in the Green Belt at Wrens Nest, North Warwickshire. The local authority issued enforcement notices alleging a material change of use to residential caravan sites. An Inspector dismissed the appeals against the notices on Ground A, dismissed an associated planning appeal, and extended the compliance period under Ground G from six to eighteen months.

The appellants challenged the Inspector’s decision under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They alleged that the Inspector had treated the two sites as one, wrongly assessed gypsy status and need, misapplied policy concerning temporary permissions, and unfairly relied on the unlawfulness and allegedly opportunistic nature of the occupation.

The central issues were whether the Inspector had lawfully considered each site separately and whether his assessment of need, personal circumstances and very special circumstances was legally adequate.

1. The appeals were dismissed. A conjoined inquiry and a single decision letter were lawful. Each appellant remained entitled to an individual decision, with material considerations taken into account, irrelevant matters excluded and adequate reasons given.
2. On a fair reading, the Inspector separated common matters from site-specific matters. His final conclusions were expressed together because he found that neither site presented very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the Green Belt harm. Differences in the degree of harm or personal need did not require separate recitation where the reasoning clearly applied to each site.
3. The Inspector did not assign different degrees of gypsy status. The appellants remained gypsies and travellers. He lawfully gave reduced weight to the Eastern site occupants’ personal circumstances because they had recently lived in settled accommodation and had chosen to occupy the site without established residential permission.
4. The existence of the temporary Hartshill permission did not count towards the permanent requirement. It was nevertheless relevant to the immediate urgency and gravity of the shortfall, particularly given the reasonable prospect that the site would become permanent through the development plan process. The Inspector was entitled to give the identified need limited weight.
5. Planning Policy Statement 3 did not alter the specific approach in Circular 1/2006, the Green Belt policy or the requirement for very special circumstances. If applicable to gypsy sites, paragraph 71 of PPS 3 substantially expressed the same consideration as the Circular, rather than creating an additional cumulative factor.
6. The Circular expected, but did not require, substantial weight to be given to unmet need. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the particular unmet need did not merit substantial weight, provided reasons were given. In the enforcement context, extending time for compliance could serve substantially the same practical purpose as a temporary permission.
7. The lawfulness of the occupation was a relevant matter of weight, though not necessarily decisive. The Inspector’s principal concern was the evidential significance of the appellants’ previous accommodation, lack of consultation and establishment of the sites without authorisation, described as opportunistic occupation. There was no breach of natural justice.

The Inspector dismissed the Ground A appeals against the enforcement notices, dismissed the related planning appeal, and allowed the Ground G appeals only to the extent of extending compliance time from six to eighteen months. Permission to bring the section 289 appeals was granted by Collins J. The High Court dismissed all three challenges.