Tingey v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Government policy aims for traveller sites are not requirements that occupants must access services by foot or public transport. The term access includes private vehicles, walking and public transport. Decision-makers must assess the extent to which a proposed site fulfils the broad aims in the policy, having regard to local development-plan criteria and the wider planning framework. Relevant considerations include the range of services within reasonable reach, the availability of transport choices, and whether access arrangements create highway-safety concerns. A planning inspector’s interpretation of policy is a legal issue, but its application and the weight given to competing considerations remain matters of planning judgment.

An inspector dismissed an appeal against refusal of planning permission for a settled Romany Gypsy accommodation site. The inspector found conflict with local policies concerning safe access, proximity to services and sustainable transport, and concluded that those concerns outweighed the unmet need for traveller pitches and other considerations.

The claimant sought to quash the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission was granted only on a part of ground 1, namely that the inspector had allegedly misconstrued the aims of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites by treating access to services by foot and public transport as a specific requirement.

1. Claim dismissed. The inspector had not misunderstood the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.
2. The policy aims in paragraph 4, including aims 4h and 4j, are broad aims to be fulfilled through plan-making and decision-taking. They do not require every new traveller site to be accessible to services by foot and public transport. The word access includes private vehicles, walking and public transport.
3. That conclusion does not make non-vehicular access irrelevant. In assessing whether a site fulfils aims 4h and 4j, a decision-maker may consider:
   • the nature and adequacy of services and facilities within reasonable reach;
   • the extent to which the site is served by transport choices other than the private car; and
   • whether the site’s access arrangements, including highway-safety risks, undermine its suitability.
4. The assessment must be guided by locally specific criteria in the development plan, as contemplated by paragraph 24(d) of the policy, and by the Framework, which the policy requires to be read alongside it. The inspector was entitled to rely on the local policies concerning safe pedestrian and vehicular access, proximity to services and sustainable transport.
5. The court distinguished questions of policy interpretation from planning judgment. The inspector was exercising planning judgment in assessing the degree to which the site fulfilled the policy aims, having found that safe access other than by private vehicle was not available. Her reasoning did not import an absolute foot-and-public-transport requirement.
6. The claimant therefore failed to establish an error of law. In any event, had an error been established, it would not have been material because the inspector’s independent findings concerning highway safety, policy conflict and the planning balance would still have led to dismissal.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. Permission was granted on part of ground 1 by James Strachan QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, on 29 November 2019; permission on grounds 2 and 3 was refused.