Case No: C1/2012/0920
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 1387
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(JOHN HOWELL QC sitting as Deputy High Court Judge)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: Tuesday, 2nd October 2012
Before:

LORD JUSTICE ELIAS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

	O’CONNOR	
Appellant	
	
- and -		

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ANOTHER	

Respondent	
			
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Stephen Cottle (instructed by the Community Law Partnership) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Lord Justice Elias:

1.	There is an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act by an Irish gypsy who wished to use certain land as a private gypsy and traveller site.  There was an appeal decision from an inspector in the usual way.  The inspector, understandably, gave substantial weight to the harm to the green belt arising from the appropriateness, or inappropriateness so far as he saw it, of the proposal.  He also identified, however, in paragraph 28 a whole series of factors which should be weighed in favour of the proposal.  

2.	The short point arising in this appeal is that it is contended that on the facts of this case it was accepted that there was an unmet need for sites for gypsies and travellers and a reasonable expectation that new sites were likely to become available in the future.  In the light of that, it is submitted that paragraph 46 of Circular 01/2006 requires in terms that substantial weight must be given to the unmet need.  The inspector nowhere indicated that he was giving substantial weight to the unmet need and it suggests, so it is submitted by Mr Cottle, that he may therefore have not properly understood the planning framework within which his decision had to be made.

3.	Suffice it to say that I have been persuaded that this is an arguable point.  He runs a second point, which is that the inspector may have misunderstood or misinterpreted paragraph 109 of Circular 195 and might have acted under the false impression that if he could not impose conditions which would deal adequately with the damage to the amenity for a permanent planning permission, then he could not grant temporary planning permission.  I have to say I have far greater doubts as to whether that is sustainable, essentially for the reasons given by the judge, Mr John Howell QC, in his decision.  But in the circumstances it links to some extent with the alternative ground, and I will not stop Mr Cottle pursuing it.

4.	Half a day.  I should add that the application was nine days late.  It was whilst Mr Cottle was waiting to know whether or not he had legal aid, and I grant the extended time in the circumstances.

Order:  Application granted.