North West council fails in appeals over decision by inspector to grant permission for Gypsy pitches on Green Belt site

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council has lost appeals over a planning inspector’s decision to give permission for a change of use to allow six Gypsy pitches on a Green Belt site.

In Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government [2021] EWHC 1082 (Admin) HH Judge Eyre QC ruled that in a case involving “a classic exercise of planning judgement”, the inspector had not erred in allowing permission to interested party Jerry Doherty.

Sefton had appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the grant of planning permission and section 289 against the quashing of its enforcement notices.

It argued that the inspector erred in law in failing properly to interpret the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and so failed to apply that policy correctly, and that the inspector gave inadequate reasons for the decision.

Mr Doherty’s family are travellers and the site they occupied was vacant and overgrown.

He applied for change of use from a pony paddock to six Gipsy/Traveller pitches for the family.

Sefton refused on the grounds that the proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, there would be a loss of openness and that there were no ‘very special circumstances’ clearly outweighing that harm.

Mr Doherty despite this created hardstanding on part of the site and placed caravans there, which led to enforcement notices.

He appealed and the inspector decided Mr Doherty’s proposal meant there would be “no significant harm to the character and appearance of the area”.

This was based on NPPF paragraph 144, which stated that substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt, and ‘very special circumstances’ allowing development cannot exist unless other considerations clearly outweigh this harm.

The inspector balanced factors including harm to the Green Belt and the circumstances of the Doherty family and concluded the development should be allowed.

Judge Eyre said Sefton’s argument failed to “take proper account of the nature and purpose of the NPPF and of paragraph 144 in particular.

“The NPPF is not a statute and is not to be construed as such, rather it is guidance to decision makers and paragraph 144 is giving guidance as to how a particular exercise of planning judgement should be approached.”

He said Sefton had taken “an excessively forensic analysis and [failed] to read that paragraph in the light of paragraph 143 [which] sets out the requirement that such development should not be approved unless there are very special circumstances”.

Judge Eyre said the inspector's analysis of the issues “cannot be faulted and his articulation of the applicable test is unimpeachable”.

He added: “The inspector was clearly alert to the need to be satisfied that there were very special circumstances before upholding the appeals and granting permission.

“Having taken account of that need the inspector nonetheless concluded that very special circumstances existed in the particular case. This was a classic exercise of planning judgement and did not display any error of law.”

Mark Smulian