Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor.

The claimant sought permission to bring a planning statutory review of an inspector's decision dismissing an appeal against refusal of planning permission for the stationing of caravans on land in the Green Belt. The inspector concluded the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt and that the substantial harm to openness and to the Green Belt was not clearly outweighed by other considerations, including the appellant's housing need, the absence of a five-year supply of traveller pitches, the best interests of the children and human rights considerations. The inspector also considered whether a temporary or personal permission would obviate the Green Belt harm and considered the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.

The High Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. The judge held that the inspector had addressed the correct legal questions (including the need for very special circumstances for inappropriate Green Belt development and the weight to be given to Green Belt harm under national policy), had considered the relevant factors (housing need, lack of five-year supply, best interests of the children, equality duty and human rights) and reached a planning judgment that, though one on which others might differ, was not irrational or perverse.

This is a renewed oral application for permission to bring planning statutory review proceedings challenging an inspector's decision dated 30 December 2021 dismissing an appeal against Basildon District Council's refusal of planning permission for change of use of land to station caravans for residential occupation.

Background and parties: The appeal was brought by Mr Cooper (the site applicant). The claimant for this judicial review application is his partner, Winifred Ward, an Irish Traveller who lives on the site with Mr Cooper and their children. Mr Cooper did not himself issue the claim for planning statutory review; Lang J ordered steps on joinder and there was an earlier refusal on the papers by Johnson J. The claimant sought permission to challenge the inspector's decision, principally on the ground that the decision was irrational.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant sought permission to apply for planning statutory review to quash the inspector's decision refusing temporary or personal planning permission such as to allow the family to remain on the site.

Issues framed: (i) whether the inspector's refusal to grant temporary or personal permission was irrational/unreasonable (Wednesbury test); (ii) whether the inspector properly applied the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010; (iii) whether the inspector wrongly failed to give adequate weight to the absence of a plan or to the acute shortage of available traveller sites in Basildon; (iv) whether the best interests of the children and evidence to support the inspector's findings were properly considered.

Decision letter and reasoning: The inspector found the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that substantial weight attached to that harm (applying national policy as set out in paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework). She accepted the appellant's need for a pitch and attached significant weight to the personal circumstances of the family and to the best interests of the children; she found a clear local need and an absence of a five-year supply of deliverable traveller pitches. She considered human rights (section 8 HRA 1998), the possibility of temporary or personal permission and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). Her conclusion was that, notwithstanding those considerations, the substantial harm to the Green Belt and openness could not be clearly outweighed and dismissal of the appeal was proportionate and necessary.

Court's reasoning: Applying the Wednesbury standard of irrationality as explained in the authorities cited to the court (including Alconbury, Balchin, Moore and Newsmith), the judge emphasised that an inspector's planning judgments involve evaluative assessments and that a range of reasonable conclusions is possible. The judge found the inspector had asked the correct questions, addressed the relevant considerations (including PSED, human rights, best interests of the children and the lack of a five-year supply), and reached a coherent and reasoned conclusion. The claimant's expanded oral case and newly served medical material post-dated the inspector's decision and could not impugn it. The judge refused permission to judicially review the inspector's decision on the ground of irrationality.

Other observations: Ground 1 (challenge to the inspector's approach to weighting Green Belt harms) was not renewed. The court recorded that while another inspector might have reached a different view, the present decision was not one that could be characterised as irrational.

Permission to apply for planning statutory review is refused. The judge held that the inspector correctly identified and applied the relevant legal framework for Green Belt development and very special circumstances, gave appropriate consideration to the housing need, lack of a five-year supply, the best interests of the children, human rights and the Public Sector Equality Duty, and reached a planning judgment that was within the range of reasonable conclusions and not irrational.

Prior procedural steps described in the judgment: Lang J made an order on 4 March 2022 requiring Mr Cooper to file and serve written submissions as to joinder where relevant. An earlier application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by Johnson J. This judgment records a renewed oral application heard on 9 November 2022 and determined on 18 November 2022.