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

In a statutory review of a planning appeal concerning inappropriate traveller-site development in the Green Belt, the court held that the very special circumstances test is a matter of planning judgment, not a mathematical balancing exercise. The decision-maker must give substantial weight to Green Belt harm, but need not assign a separate or numerically equivalent weight to every countervailing consideration.

Where Article 8 is engaged, the best interests of affected children are a primary consideration. They are not determinative, and no other consideration may be treated as inherently more important. An inspector may state the proportionality assessment briefly if the decision letter, read fairly and as a whole, identifies the interference, competing interests, less intrusive alternatives and reasons for the conclusion.

The claimant, an Irish Traveller living with her family on land in the Green Belt, applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge an inspector’s dismissal of an appeal against refusal of planning permission. The proposed development involved the stationing of caravans for residential occupation.

The claimant contended that the inspector had irrationally refused temporary or personal permission, failed to conduct a lawful Article 8 proportionality assessment, undervalued the children’s best interests, and failed to take account of relevant planning factors. Permission for statutory review had been granted by the Court of Appeal, and the High Court considered the pleaded grounds, including one outside the original scope of permission with the defendant’s consent.

1. Claim dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful and rational.

2. The proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and caused additional harm to openness. Under the Framework, substantial weight was properly given to both forms of harm. The assessment of whether very special circumstances existed was a matter of planning judgment, not a mathematical exercise. The court could not re-evaluate the planning merits.

3. The inspector was entitled to give significant weight to the shortage of traveller pitches, the family’s housing and personal circumstances, the absence of an alternative site, the children’s best interests and other relevant considerations, while concluding that they did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm. She was not legally required to assign separate weight to every factor.

4. Article 8 was engaged because dismissal of the appeal could deprive the family of its home. The inspector identified the interference, considered the family’s needs and the wider public interest in protecting the Green Belt, and considered less intrusive alternatives, including temporary or personal permission. A planning inspector need not set out the proportionality test in judicial form; the assessment may be brief when read with the decision’s earlier findings.

5. The best interests of the children were expressly treated as a primary consideration. The use of “significant” weight rather than “substantial” weight did not establish unlawful undervaluation, because the inspector’s evidence showed that she treated the terms as equivalent and did not regard another consideration as inherently more important. The claim therefore disclosed no error of law or inadequacy of reasons.

• Court of Appeal: On 25 January 2023, Lewison LJ granted permission to apply for statutory review on arguable issues concerning the inspector’s use of “significant” and “substantial” weight and her consideration of proportionality.
• High Court (Planning Court): The claim for statutory review was dismissed.