Council wins Planning Court challenge over decision of inspector to grant permission for change of use of land to private gypsy and traveller site
A planning inspector erred in a case involving a proposal for a travellers’ site in the Green Belt, the High Court has ruled.
Mrs Justice Lieven said this failing was “entirely clear” in a case brought by the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames against the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Laura Williams, who was the appellant before the inspector.
In Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) the judge quashed the decision letter and returned the matter to the Secretary of State.
Kingston’s claim was made under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the inspector’s decision to grant permission for the change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller site for one mobile home and associated development.
The council submitted the Inspector erred in his application of green belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites August 2015.
Although the Secretary of State conceded there was an error of law and that the decision should be quashed, Ms Williams sought to uphold the decision and said the inspector did not misdirect himself.
The inspector had accepted Ms Williams met the definition of Gypsy and Traveller in Annex 1 of the policy and said the main issues were "whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the NPPF and any relevant development policies, including the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt”.
Kingston argued the inspector plainly went wrong in his approach to the planning policy for travellers, which was explicit in stating that traveller sites in the Green Belt are inappropriate development.
Lieven J noted the NPPF said in terms that it should be read in conjunction with the Government's planning policy for traveller sites but the inspector appeared not to have done this having instead taken the view that the 2021 NPPF post-dated the policy, an interpretation the judge called “plainly wrong”.
She said: “It is in my view entirely clear that the inspector erred in law in the decision letter.
“At its most simple, this is because he failed to take into account paragraph 4 of the NPPF which states in terms that it must be read with the [traveller site policy, which] is clear that the stationing of caravans for a travellers' site is inappropriate development in the green belt.
“Therefore, when the inspector found the use was not inappropriate…he either failed to take into account a material consideration or materially misdirected himself on the interpretation of policy. The error is manifest.”
The judge said it was “highly unlikely, if not to say incredible”, that the Secretary of State would have widened the category of ‘not inappropriate’ changes of use in the Green Belt to cover residential without making that absolutely clear.
A list of examples of acceptable development was not open ended and on “any sensible reading of the context can only lead to the conclusion that the uses permitted were to be read as being very closely aligned to the examples given”.
She dismissed an argument the policy was discriminatory against Gypsies and Travellers noting that residential development of any kind and by anyone was deemed inappropriate.
Mark Smulian
