High Court quashes planning permission for four Gypsy sites

A Deputy High Court judge has quashed the grant by Ashford Borough Council of planning permission for four Gypsy sites.

Local resident Raymond Cooper brought the case contending that the grant of permission for pitches and associated development near to Shadoxhurst village was flawed because Ashford failed to determine it in accordance with the local development plan.

He also argued that the council failed to distinguish the development proposed from an earlier proposal where it had rejected planning permission, so being inconsistent, and that the council failed to recognise that granting permission would lead to other similar applications that if granted would cause cumulative harm to the semi-natural ancient woodland in the area.

Cooper also argued that the council failed to have regard to whether it should have granted only personal permission to the applicant rather than imposed a restriction limiting the site to Gypsies and Travellers.

In Cooper, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 1525 (Admin) John Howell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, said the council’s summary grounds “disclose two errors of law”, in relation to its local plan and its policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites.

The judge went on to note that the application was not in accordance with the council’s policy on allocating sites as it “provides that, if required, sites for gypsy and travellers will be identified in a site allocation Development Plan Document on the basis of certain criteria.

“There is no such Development Plan Document and accordingly the site is not one allocated in it… if the council's summary grounds describe the development control manager's reasoning, they disclose a further error of law when explaining why it was thought that the proposed development was in accordance with the development plan as a whole”.

The judge found that the development control manager “should have concluded that local plan policy EN32 required permission to be refused given the harm to the ancient woodland (which the assessment recognised) that the proposed development would cause and…should not have concluded that the proposed development was in accordance with the development plan as a whole on balance”, given the conflict with local plan policies.

He did though dismiss the other three grounds argued.

The case was the second in a week in which the High Court has quashed permission for a Gypsy and Traveller development in Kent.

Mark Smulian