London Borough of Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2008] EWHC 3145 (Admin) (18 December 2008)

London Borough of Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2008] EWHC 3145 (Admin) (18 December 2008)

The Inspector did not err in law by granting temporary planning permission after refusing permanent permission, as he properly applied the combined effect of Circular 11/95 and Circular 01/2006. The Inspector's reasoning was adequate, and the expectation of a change in planning circumstances (availability of alternative sites within two years) justified the temporary permission. The absence of express reference to paragraph 109 did not amount to a failure to consider material policy, as the Inspector was clearly familiar with and applied the relevant guidance.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3145 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The London Borough of Bromley; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Maria Friend
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application and appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Temporary Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Material Considerations in Planning, Interpretation of Planning Circulars, Human Rights Act Implications
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Temporary Planning Permission Green Belt Policy Gypsy and Traveller Sites Material Considerations in Planning Interpretation of Planning Circulars +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Bromley

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Maria Friend

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by granting temporary planning permission for a gypsy caravan site in the Green Belt after refusing permanent permission due to harm to the Green Belt, without expressly referring to paragraph 109 of Circular 11/95.
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to material considerations, specifically the guidance in Circular 11/95, paragraph 109, when granting temporary permission.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasoning was adequate and in accordance with planning policy as developed by Circular 01/2006.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law by granting temporary planning permission after refusing permanent permission, as he properly applied the combined effect of Circular 11/95 and Circular 01/2006. The Inspector's reasoning was adequate, and the expectation of a change in planning circumstances (availability of alternative sites within two years) justified the temporary permission. The absence of express reference to paragraph 109 did not amount to a failure to consider material policy, as the Inspector was clearly familiar with and applied the relevant guidance.

Court Disposition

Application and appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision stands; temporary planning permission for two years is upheld.
  • The enforcement notice remains quashed.