Gregory Park Holding Limited v Hart District Council

Planning policy must be construed objectively from its language and proper context. The policy must be read as it stands, without unnecessary investigation of its history or background documents. A requirement that an applicant demonstrate a need places the evidential burden on the applicant; it does not necessarily require proof of a personal need experienced by that applicant. A general need may suffice where the proposed development will help meet it. The content of “need” may change as the supply of authorised sites increases.

The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for two Gypsy pitches in the grounds of a listed estate. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the question whether policy H5(a) of the Hart Local Plan required an applicant for a Gypsy or Traveller site in the open countryside to demonstrate a personal need, or whether an identified general need for further sites was sufficient.

The local planning authority had relied on an identified unmet need in the district. The court therefore had to construe policy H5(a), read with the remainder of the policy, its supporting text and national planning guidance.

1. Judicial review claim dismissed. The planning permission was not unlawful.
2. Construction of planning policy is a question of law for the court. The policy is interpreted objectively, by reference to the words used and their proper context. It is construed as it stands. Resort to its history or background documents is inappropriate unless a particular difficulty can be resolved only by a document incorporated into, or expressly referred to in, the plan.
3. Policy H5(a) places an evidential burden on the applicant to demonstrate a need. If there is doubt about the need, the application may be refused. The policy does not require the applicant personally to experience the need, and “personal” should not be inserted into the policy.
4. The relevant question is whether there is a need for gypsy sites which the proposed development will help to meet. An identified general need may satisfy H5(a), including where the evidence comes from the authority’s assessment rather than from the applicant.
5. The content of “need” is context-sensitive and changes over time. As sufficient sites are provided, the general need may diminish. Eventually, a countryside application may require evidence of a need for an additional site at the particular location proposed.
6. The authority’s reliance on the district-wide unmet need identified in its Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was capable of satisfying H5(a). The claim was dismissed.

Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on the papers. On renewal, Eyre J granted permission on one ground in [2021] EWHC 2835 (Admin). The High Court (Planning Court) dismissed the substantive judicial review claim.