Claimant fails in challenge to decision by inspector to grant permission for gypsy/traveller site following council refusal

HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting as a judge of the High Court, heard the case brought by local resident Samuel Launchbury against the Secretary of State For Housing, Communities and Local Government, applicant Charmaine Davies and Wychavon District Council.

Inspector Laura Cuthbert had given permission to Ms Davies to develop a six-pitch site near Chilswickham, despite Wychavon having earlier refused consent and her own finding that it was unsuitable.

Mr Launchbury, who lives nearby, brought his case under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

He secured Aarhus costs protection capping his liability for the defendants' costs at £5,000 and their liability for his at £35,000.

Ms Walden-Smith said Mr Launchbury contended Ms Cuthbert erred by relying on her own judgment to reach a conclusion “that it is incomprehensible or irrational”, failed to explain how her findings aligned with planning policies and that having accepted that the location of the development was unsustainable, “she determined that the development of the Traveller site should be allowed in a way which was contrary to local and national policy”.

The Secretary of State countered that the claim was merely “an attempt to express disagreement with various planning judgments which were reached by the inspector. It fails to articulate any actual errors of law and is not arguable”.

Ms Cuthbert concluded the site unsuitable as it was not within, or on the edge of, a town, did not offer genuine sustainable travel choices, and these factors would result in significant harm.

But she found Wychavon unable to demonstrate a five year supply of Gypsy/Traveller sites with a shortfall of 12 pitches and gave that unmet need significant weight in her decision, while, also attaching considerable weight to the lack of suitable and alternative sites.

She also gave substantial weight to Ms Davies’ family having - were the site not provided - to revert to a roadside existence and that a "settled base would bring stability and avoid the stress of a roadside existence”.

Objections concerning landscape, biodiversity and flooding could be resolved, Ms Cuthbert found.

HHJ Walden-Smith found that the inspector had been entitled to reach these conclusions and that sufficient information had been given to support them.

She concluded: “I have had the opportunity to consider this challenge in depth and I am clear that, while the claimant is seeking to support the claim on the basis that it is a challenge to the rationality of her decision, this really is a merits challenge.

“I can appreciate the claimant's concerns, but the decision was ultimately one for the inspector's planning judgment and she appropriately took into account all the matters that she needed to and as a consequence this renewed application for permission must fail.”

Mark Smulian