Stevens, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government

In a planning challenge, the weight assigned to relevant considerations is ordinarily for the planning decision-maker, not the reviewing court. Where national planning policy states that personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely clearly to outweigh Green Belt harm, an inspector may lawfully give those matters considerable, rather than substantial, weight, provided the reasoning is adequate and intelligible. The best interests of children must receive separate consideration, but the requirement to consider them does not prescribe the weight they must receive or displace the policy balance in every case. A challenge that merely disputes the weight given to competing considerations is not an error of law.

The claimant, a group of Romany gypsies, sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s dismissal of an appeal against refusal of permission for a residential caravan site in the Green Belt.

The inspector accepted that the proposal was inappropriate development and identified substantial Green Belt harm, while giving considerable weight to the shortage of traveller pitches, the families’ personal circumstances and unmet need. He also considered the children’s interests and concluded that neither permanent nor temporary permission was justified.

Permission to bring the claim was refused on the papers. On renewal, the central issues were whether the inspector had unlawfully assessed the weight given to personal circumstances and unmet need, failed to explain that assessment, or failed properly to weigh the children’s best interests.

1. Renewed application refused. The proposed grounds were not properly arguable.
2. The weight given to a relevant planning consideration is classically a matter for the decision-maker. A court conducting statutory review does not substitute its own assessment of weight. The inspector’s decision to give the families’ personal circumstances and unmet need considerable, rather than substantial, weight was therefore not an error of law.
3. The inspector’s approach was consistent with paragraph 16 of Planning Policy for Travellers, which provides that personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely clearly to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. His ranking of weight as substantial, considerable or minor was a sensible reformulation of that policy.
4. The inspector adequately explained why personal circumstances and unmet need did not warrant substantial weight. He recognised the policy, accepted that Green Belt harm and inappropriate development should receive substantial weight, and applied that approach to the facts.
5. The qualification that the policy operates subject to the best interests of the child requires separate consideration of children’s interests. It does not mean that the policy balance applies differently in every case involving children. The inspector expressly considered those interests and took them into account in the overall planning balance.
6. The challenge to the weight given to the children’s interests was likewise a challenge to the merits of the planning judgment, not an error of law. The renewed application was refused. Costs remained governed by the earlier order.

Permission to bring the statutory review was refused on the papers by Mr Justice Dove. The claimant renewed the application before Mr Justice Garnham, who refused it.