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

The court dismissed the claimant’s statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s decision refusing planning permission for stationing caravans in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Key legal principles applied were the Framework Green Belt tests (paragraphs 142–153), the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and the requirement to give substantial weight to Green Belt harm, the distinct planning judgment involved in assessing ‘openness’, and the proper application of Article 8 ECHR (proportionality) and the best interests of the children as a primary consideration.

The judge found that the inspector had correctly identified and weighed the relevant considerations: (i) the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and caused harm to openness, to which she gave substantial weight; (ii) there was an immediate and unmet need for traveller pitches and the family’s personal circumstances (including mixed heritage and health needs) and the best interests of the children attracted significant/primary weight; (iii) the inspector carried out the required proportionality assessment and reasonably concluded that the Green Belt harm was not clearly outweighed by other considerations and that a temporary or personal permission would still cause unacceptable Green Belt harm. The court rejected submissions that the inspector misapplied or irrationally weighted considerations, failed to apply the public sector equality duty, or gave inadequate reasons.

This is a first-instance statutory review under section 288 TCPA 1990 of an inspector’s decision dismissing an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a material change of use to station caravans for residential occupation in the Metropolitan Green Belt at Bowers Gifford, Basildon. The claimant, an Irish Traveller living on the site with her partner (a Romani Gypsy) and their children, sought judicial review of the inspector’s refusal to grant temporary or personal permission.

Background and parties:

• The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the local development plan is out of date; the Council had no five-year supply of traveller pitches.
• The family occupied two caravans on the site; enforcement action had been taken by the Council and planning permission had been refused in February 2019.
• The claimant obtained legal aid and brought the statutory review; the appellant in the planning appeal (Mr Cooper) was not a claimant in this review.

Procedural history: Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on the papers and on oral renewal; the Court of Appeal (Lewison LJ) subsequently granted permission to pursue a ground concerning proportionality and the weight given to Green Belt harm. The claimant later filed an amended statement of grounds.

Issues before the court:

• whether the inspector irrationally or perversely refused temporary or personal permission (Ground 1 / recast Ground 1);
• whether the inspector failed to treat the children’s best interests as a primary consideration or gave those interests insufficient weight (Ground 2);
• whether the inspector lawfully and adequately carried out the Article 8 proportionality assessment and gave adequate reasons (Ground 3);
• whether the inspector’s balancing exercise omitted material ingredients (Ground 4 — raised later).

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The court reviewed statutory and policy materials (TCPA 1990, PCPA 2004, the Framework, PPTS, and caselaw) and emphasised that many Green Belt matters are planning judgment rather than questions of law.
• The inspector had: (a) correctly identified the proposal as inappropriate development causing harm to Green Belt openness and given it substantial weight in accordance with Framework paragraph 153; (b) correctly found a lack of a five‑year supply of traveller sites and gave significant weight to unmet need and to the family’s personal circumstances; (c) explicitly identified and treated the children’s best interests as a primary consideration and gave them significant weight; and (d) considered whether less intrusive measures (temporary or personal permission) could address the interference with Article 8 rights and reasonably concluded they would still cause unacceptable harm to the Green Belt.
• The court found no error of law in the inspector’s approach to weighting terminology (‘substantial’ v ‘significant’) and no basis to disturb the planning judgments reached. The proportionality assessment was adequately addressed when read in context, and reasons were sufficient for judicial review purposes.

The claim for statutory review was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the inspector properly directed herself on the applicable Green Belt and traveller policies, treated the best interests of the children as a primary consideration, conducted a lawful proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR, and reached rational planning judgments that the Green Belt harm (by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness) was not clearly outweighed by the personal circumstances or need for pitches. The inspector’s use of the terms 'substantial' and 'significant' did not indicate a legal error and the reasons were adequate.

Permission to apply for statutory review was refused on the papers by Johnson J on 24 June 2022 and renewed orally before HH Judge Walden‑Smith (sitting in the High Court) on 8 November 2022, when permission was refused. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lewison LJ granted permission to apply for statutory review on 25 January 2023 (limited to issues about the transition from 'primary consideration' to the weight given and proportionality). The parties were later permitted to file an amended statement of facts and grounds by order of an Administrative Court Office Lawyer on 14 April 2023.