Earl Shilton Action Group, R (on the application of) v Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council & Ors

The claimant, a residents' association, challenged the Council's grant of planning permission for a ten-pitch caravan site for Gypsies and Travellers. Key legal principles applied were the duty to have regard to all material considerations under section 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the primacy of the development plan under section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the requirement that decision‑makers properly understand and apply relevant policy (including the NPPF and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)). The claimant advanced three principal grounds: (1A) that the officer's report mis-described PPTS paragraph 23 so as to suggest it did not apply unless sufficient sites had been identified locally; (1B) that the report wrongly suggested the site was sequentially preferable to other sites; (2) that the report misled the committee into treating Core Strategy Policy 18 as creating a presumption in favour of development; and (3) that the committee was not told of a more recent Gypsy and Traveller needs assessment which might show lesser need.

The court rejected each ground. Ground 1A failed because the officer's report, read as a whole, correctly set out the national policy and simply expressed a view as to the weight to be given to need for sites; Ground 1B failed because the reference to sequential preference was a typographical error and could not reasonably have misled committee members; Ground 2 failed because Core Strategy Policy 18 was permissive in the sense identified by the officer and did not create an unfettered presumption; and Ground 3 failed because the more recent needs assessment lacked robustness and the officer was entitled not to treat it as determinative or to place it before the committee, and in any event the new figures would not have altered the outcome.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council's 10 July 2013 planning permission for a ten-pitch caravan site at Dalebrook Farm, Earl Shilton. The claimant alleged (i) misrepresentation of national policy in the officer's report (two limbs), (ii) misrepresentation of local policy (Core Strategy Policy 18) and (iii) failure to take into account a more recent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessment. The procedural history recorded that permission to bring judicial review had earlier been granted by His Honour Judge David Cooke on 24 September 2013 only in respect of Ground 1A; the other grounds were refused permission at that stage, and Ground 3 was only subsequently raised.

The court framed the issues as: whether the officer's report had materially mis-stated PPTS paragraph 23 (strict limitation of new traveller sites in open countryside), whether it wrongly suggested the application site was sequentially preferable, whether the report wrongly suggested Core Strategy Policy 18 created a presumption in favour of Gypsy site development, and whether the committee was wrongly deprived of the most up-to-date needs evidence.

The court applied established planning law principles: decision-makers must understand relevant policy (section 70(2) TCPA 1990; section 38(6) PCPA 2004; NPPF; PPTS) and officers' reports should fairly identify material matters but are to be read as documents prepared for a knowledgeable committee. On Ground 1A the court held the officer's wording was clumsy but, read as a whole, correctly stated the national policy and properly indicated the officer's view on the weight to be given to the need to provide sites. On Ground 1B the court held the reference to sequential preference was an obvious typographical error and not a statement that other available sites had been considered and rejected. On Ground 2 the court held that CS Policy 18 requires evaluation against criteria and that the officer correctly explained that compliance with those criteria would give rise to a presumption in favour of development, subject to other material considerations. On Ground 3 the court found the more recent needs assessment was not sufficiently robust or approved for decision‑taking at the time of the committee meeting and would not realistically have altered the decision. The judge therefore refused the substantive application and refused permission to proceed on the other grounds.

The judgment records contextual material: recognition of Gypsies as a protected ethnic group and the domestic and European law background obliging state facilitation of the Gypsy way of life; the Council's lack of an adopted site allocations policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites and the existence of a 2007 regional assessment incorporated into CS Policy 18; and the Council's then-ongoing work on a separate Gypsy and Traveller Sites DPD, including a 2013 needs study which the Council's Executive later adopted only as an evidence base for plan preparation.

The substantive judicial review claim is dismissed and all remaining applications for permission to proceed are refused. The court held that (a) the officer's report, read as a whole, did not misapply PPTS paragraph 23 but properly reflected the national policy and expressed an evidential view as to weight; (b) an apparent reference to 'sequentially preferable' was a typographical error that could not have misled members; (c) Core Strategy Policy 18 was correctly explained as permissive subject to satisfaction of its criteria and did not create an automatic presumption for permission; and (d) the more recent Gypsy and Traveller needs assessment was not sufficiently robust or approved for decision‑taking and would not have changed the outcome.

On 24 September 2013 His Honour Judge David Cooke granted permission to proceed on Ground 1A but refused permission on Grounds 1B and 2. Ground 3 was raised after that permission decision. Those prior procedural steps are recorded in the judgment.