Connors & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Connors & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Secretary of State's decisions to dismiss appeals and refuse planning permission for Traveller and Gypsy sites in the Green Belt were lawful, rational, compatible with Article 8 and 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010, and properly considered all material factors including unmet need, personal circumstances, and best interests of children. No evidence established differential treatment or discrimination. The policy to determine such appeals centrally was not challengeable in these proceedings. Applications and appeals are dismissed.

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: 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 Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications and appeals dismissed; permission to appeal granted but appeals themselves dismissed.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Traveller and Gypsy Sites, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Public Sector Equality Duty, Temporary Planning Permission, Enforcement Notice Appeals
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Planning Permission Green Belt Policy Traveller and Gypsy Sites Article 8 ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 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

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 Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of Secretary of State's policy to determine Traveller and Gypsy appeals in Green Belt
  2. 2 Compatibility of decisions with Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Compliance with Public Sector Equality Duty under Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decisions to dismiss appeals and refuse planning permission for Traveller and Gypsy sites in the Green Belt were lawful, rational, compatible with Article 8 and 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010, and properly considered all material factors including unmet need, personal circumstances, and best interests of children. No evidence established differential treatment or discrimination. The policy to determine such appeals centrally was not challengeable in these proceedings. Applications and appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications and appeals dismissed; permission to appeal granted but appeals themselves dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications under section 288 of the 1990 Act to quash decisions refused.
  • Permission to appeal under section 289 granted for Mrs Doran and Mrs Lee, but appeals dismissed.