Coyle, R (on the application of) v Kingston Upon Thames [2003] EWHC 816 (Admin) (20 March 2003)

Coyle, R (on the application of) v Kingston Upon Thames [2003] EWHC 816 (Admin) (20 March 2003)

The inspector did not err in law; the proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, would harm openness and the purposes of the Green Belt, and no very special circumstances existed to justify permission. The plan's non-compliance with Circular 1/94 did not require granting permission, and the inspector properly considered the claimant's needs and the planning objections.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 816 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Coyle; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Appeal Against Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Development Plans, Material Change of Use, Very Special Circumstances, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Development Plans Material Change of Use Very Special Circumstances Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coyle

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Appeal Against Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in dismissing the appeal for change of use to a gypsy caravan site in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the local plan's policy on gypsy sites complied with Circular 1/94
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to consider the need for gypsy sites and the absence of suitable alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law; the proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, would harm openness and the purposes of the Green Belt, and no very special circumstances existed to justify permission. The plan's non-compliance with Circular 1/94 did not require granting permission, and the inspector properly considered the claimant's needs and the planning objections.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the first respondent in the sum of £3,250