Connors & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 2358 (Admin) (11 July 2014)

Connors & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 2358 (Admin) (11 July 2014)

The Secretary of State's policy to recover Traveller site appeals in the Green Belt was not unlawful, discriminatory, or in breach of the public sector equality duty. The policy was justified by the need to ensure consistent application of national Green Belt policy. The individual decisions to dismiss the Claimants' appeals were lawful, rational, and proportionate, with proper consideration given to unmet need, personal circumstances, and human rights obligations. There was no breach of Article 8 or Article 14 ECHR or the Equality Act 2010.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2358 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Edward Connors; Claimant/appellant: Mr Miley Connors; Claimant/appellant: Mrs Bridget Doran; Claimant/appellant: Mr Fred Sines; Claimant/appellant: Jane Lee; Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Defendant/respondent: Reigate & Banstead Borough Council; Defendant/respondent: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead; Defendant/respondent: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council; Defendant/respondent: Runnymede Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/statutory Challenge Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Sections 288 and 289 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Traveller Site Planning Appeals, Article 14 ECHR Discrimination, Public Sector Equality Duty, Article 8 ECHR Family Life, Enforcement Notice Appeals, Material Change of Use, Ministerial Policy Challenge
Planning Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Traveller Site Planning Appeals Article 14 ECHR Discrimination Public Sector Equality Duty +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Edward Connors

Claimant/appellant

Mr Miley Connors

Claimant/appellant

Mrs Bridget Doran

Claimant/appellant

Mr Fred Sines

Claimant/appellant

Jane Lee

Claimant/appellant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant/respondent

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Defendant/respondent

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Runnymede Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/statutory Challenge Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Sections 288 and 289 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's policy of recovering all Traveller site appeals in the Green Belt is unlawful for discrimination or breach of equality duty
  2. 2 Whether the individual planning appeal decisions were unlawful, including under Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's policy to recover Traveller site appeals in the Green Belt was not unlawful, discriminatory, or in breach of the public sector equality duty. The policy was justified by the need to ensure consistent application of national Green Belt policy. The individual decisions to dismiss the Claimants' appeals were lawful, rational, and proportionate, with proper consideration given to unmet need, personal circumstances, and human rights obligations. There was no breach of Article 8 or Article 14 ECHR or the Equality Act 2010.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Applications to quash the Secretary of State's decisions refused
  • Applications for permission to appeal under section 289 refused