Coyle, R (on the application of) v Kingston Upon Thames

Coyle, R (on the application of) v Kingston Upon Thames

The inspector did not err in law. The proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, did not maintain openness, and conflicted with Green Belt purposes. The absence of suitable sites and non-compliance of the plan with Circular 1/94 did not amount to very special circumstances. The inspector properly considered the needs of the claimant and affected families and gave adequate reasons for refusal.

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/statutory Appeal / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Development Plans, Material Change of Use, Very Special Circumstances
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Development Plans Material Change of Use Very Special Circumstances

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 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/statutory Appeal / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning permission for a gypsy site in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the development plan complied with government guidance on gypsy site provision
  3. 3 Whether there were 'very special circumstances' to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law. The proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, did not maintain openness, and conflicted with Green Belt purposes. The absence of suitable sites and non-compliance of the plan with Circular 1/94 did not amount to very special circumstances. The inspector properly considered the needs of the claimant and affected families and gave adequate reasons for refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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