Butler v Bath And North East Somerset District Council & Ors

Butler v Bath And North East Somerset District Council & Ors

The Court held that Policy 37 did not require local plans to identify suitable locations for Gypsy and traveller sites as recommended by the panel, but only to set out policy criteria. This constituted a departure from the panel's recommendation, triggering the procedural requirements of Regulation 15, which the authorities failed to follow. Accordingly, Policy 37 could not stand.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs M Butler; Defendants/respondents: Bath and North East Somerset District Council & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Development Plans, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Compliance
Administrative Law Planning Law Development Plans Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Statutory Interpretation Procedural Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs M Butler

Claimant/appellant

Bath and North East Somerset District Council & Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent authorities failed to follow the statutory procedure under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999 by not accepting the panel's recommendation to require identification of suitable locations for Gypsy and traveller sites in local plans.
  2. 2 Whether Policy 37 of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan sufficiently complied with the panel's recommendation and national policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Policy 37 did not require local plans to identify suitable locations for Gypsy and traveller sites as recommended by the panel, but only to set out policy criteria. This constituted a departure from the panel's recommendation, triggering the procedural requirements of Regulation 15, which the authorities failed to follow. Accordingly, Policy 37 could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Policy 37 to be quashed
  • Appellant awarded costs