Council wins appeal over temporary planning permission for Gypsy caravan site

The Court of Appeal has overturned a judicial review finding against Flintshire County Council over temporary provision of a Gypsy caravan site.

In Flintshire County Council v Jayes, R. (On the Application of) [2018] EWCA Civ 1089 Hickinbottom LJ, giving the lead judgment, said Deputy High Court Judge Ockelton had been wrong to decide that an officer’s report had been ‘Wednesbury unreasonable’ in allowing an application to extend the site.

It had been occupied since 2007 by Leonard Hamilton, his family, and other extended families, and in 2011 Mr Hamilton obtained temporary planning permission for five years to use it as a residential caravan site.

Flintshire accepted, in granting a further application by Mr Hamilton in 2016, that harm would result to the character of the area and the setting of a nearby listed building named Glyn Abbot, owned by Anthony Jayes, who brought the judicial review.

The council decided that there was unmet need for Gypsy sites, and to refuse permission would make the families, including a number of children, homeless as the caravans would have to be pitched at the roadside without any base from which to access healthcare and education.

Flintshire concluded that the best interests of the children outweighed the planning harm and gave the site permission for a further five years.

Judge Ockelton found Flintshire had been wrong to grant planning permission without having ascertained and evaluated the best interests of the children.

Hickinbottom LJ said in his judgment: “It is my firm view that the deputy judge unfortunately erred in his conclusion that, given the evidence with regard to the children such as it was, it was Wednesbury unreasonable for the officer to recommend grant of planning permission – and for the [planning] committee, in its turn, to resolve to grant such permission – on the basis that the best interests of the children, together with the other factors in favour of the grant of planning permission, outweighed countervailing considerations. I consider that the officer and Committee acted entirely lawfully.”