Gregory Park Holding Limited v Hart District Council

Gregory Park Holding Limited v Hart District Council

Policy H5(a) does not require demonstration of a personal need by the applicant for a Gypsy/Traveller site in the countryside; it is sufficient that a general need for such sites exists and is demonstrated. The policy imposes a burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate need, but this can be satisfied by...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Gregory Park Holding Limited; Defendant: Hart District Council; Interested Party: Mr Johnny Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Judicial Review of Local Authority Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Judicial Review of Local Authority Decisions

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Park Holding Limited

Claimant

Hart District Council

Defendant

Mr Johnny Lee

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Policy H5(a) of the Hart Local Plan requires an applicant for a Gypsy/Traveller site in the countryside to demonstrate a personal need or whether a general need suffices
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's grant of planning permission was unlawful for failure to properly apply Policy H5(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Policy H5(a) does not require demonstration of a personal need by the applicant for a Gypsy/Traveller site in the countryside; it is sufficient that a general need for such sites exists and is demonstrated. The policy imposes a burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate need, but this can be satisfied by evidence of general need, such as that provided by the GTAA. The Council's decision was therefore lawful.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed