South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

The Inspector's decision was quashed because he failed to consider the unlawfulness of the applicant's occupation and did not provide a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of whether the personal hardship amounted to 'very special circumstances' justifying departure from Green Belt policy. A mere listing of hardships was inadequate to override established planning policies.

Parties
Appellant: South Bucks District Council; 1st Respondent: Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; 2nd Respondent: Linda Porter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Gypsy Sites, Very Special Circumstances, Article 8 ECHR, Precedent in Planning, Personal Circumstances in Planning
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Green Belt Policy Gypsy Sites Very Special Circumstances Article 8 ECHR Precedent in Planning +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Bucks District Council

Appellant

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

1st Respondent

Linda Porter

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material considerations, including the unlawfulness of occupation and precedent effect
  2. 2 Whether personal hardship and gypsy status constitute 'very special circumstances' to override Green Belt policy
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasoning was sufficiently comprehensive in light of domestic and ECHR law

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was quashed because he failed to consider the unlawfulness of the applicant's occupation and did not provide a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of whether the personal hardship amounted to 'very special circumstances' justifying departure from Green Belt policy. A mere listing of hardships was inadequate to override established planning policies.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • Inspector’s decision quashed
  • Appellant to have two-thirds of the costs after 08/05/2002