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

An inspector deciding whether to grant temporary planning permission for inappropriate Green Belt development must consider the local authority’s breach of statutory duties to assess gypsy and traveller accommodation needs and to plan for meeting them. It is sufficient if the decision, read as a whole, recognises the breach, identifies the resulting unmet need and gives it significant weight; the inspector need not repeat the breach in the temporary-permission section. Those matters remain part of the planning balance and need not outweigh Green Belt harm. Circular 1/2006 requires a reasonable expectation that new sites will become available before temporary permission can be justified. An unmet need and official failure cannot create that expectation where provision is not realistically forthcoming. The court will not interfere where the inspector lawfully weighs the factors and gives adequate reasons.

The appellant had traveller status for planning purposes and occupied a Green Belt site in Essex. The local authority refused retrospective planning permission, and an Inspector refused both permanent and temporary permission. Holman J rejected the appellant’s application under section 288(5)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Inspector’s decision: [2012] EWHC 1303 (Admin).

The appeal was limited to whether the authority’s failure to assess gypsy and traveller accommodation needs and prepare a strategy, and the resulting unmet need, had been given sufficient weight when temporary permission was considered under paragraphs 45 and 46 of Circular 1/2006. The central issue was whether the Inspector had lawfully addressed those matters and sufficiently explained the refusal.

Disposition. Lord Justice Goldring delivered the judgment, with Lord Justices Aikens and McCombe agreeing. The appeal was dismissed.

1. The Inspector’s decision letter had to be read as a whole. Its discussion of the need for gypsy sites recognised the authority’s statutory duty, its failure to make the required assessment and its failure to progress planned provision. The Inspector found an unmet need, treated that need as favouring permission, and expressly considered temporary permission. It was unnecessary to repeat the statutory breach in the temporary-permission section.
2. The breach of duty under the Housing Act 2004, together with its consequences for the appellant, was a material consideration. The Inspector had given it significant weight. That did not require the grant of permission or prevent the Inspector from concluding that the consideration did not outweigh the substantial harm caused by inappropriate Green Belt development.
3. Paragraphs 45 and 46 of Circular 1/2006 required more than an unmet need. Temporary permission could be justified where there was a reasonable expectation that new sites would become available at the end of the temporary period and would meet that need. Paragraph 46’s requirement to give substantial weight to unmet need operated in that context. The guidance could not be rewritten to create such an expectation where planned provision was not realistically forthcoming.
4. The Inspector was entitled to balance Green Belt harm, unmet need, the appellant’s accommodation requirements, alternative sites, personal circumstances and the unacceptable continuation of harm caused by further occupation. The reasons were sufficiently expressed. There was no basis for alleging a failure to consider Article 8 rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities or the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal: [2013] EWCA Civ 585.
• Queen’s Bench (Administrative Court), Holman J rejected the application under section 288(5)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Inspector’s decision: [2012] EWHC 1303 (Admin).