BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just Β£1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Murphy v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 1198 (Admin) (08 May 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1198.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1198 (Admin) |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
and CO/519/2011 |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| KATHLEEN MURPHY |
Claimant |
|
| - and |
||
| (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2) WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL |
Defendants |
____________________
Michael Rudd (instructed by Bramwell Browne Odedra Solicitors) for Mrs Doran
James Maurici (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Robin Green (instructed by Wycombe District Council) for Wycombe District Council
Rochford District Council did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 14 and 15 March 2012
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Foskett:
Introduction
The planning dimension for gypsy and traveller sites
"Gypsies and Travellers are believed to experience the worst health and education status of any disadvantaged group in England. Research has consistently confirmed the link between the lack of good quality sites for gypsies and travellers and poor health and education. This circular should enhance the health and education outcomes of gypsies and travellers."
"I am writing to you today to highlight our commitment in the coalition agreements where we very clearly set out our intention to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Consequently, decisions on housing supply (including the provision of travellers' sites) will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans.
I will make a formal announcement on this matter soon. However, I expect Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to have regard to this letter as a material planning consideration in any decisions they are currently taking." (Emphasis added.)
"The abolition of Regional Strategies will require legislation in the "Localism Bill" which we are introducing this session. However, given the clear coalition commitment, it is important to avoid a period of uncertainty over planning policy, until the legislation is enacted. So I am revoking Regional Strategies today in order to give clarity to builders, developers and planners."
"On 6 July 2010, the Coalition Government revoked all regional strategies under section 79(6) of [the 2009 Act]. This action was challenged in the High Court by developer Cala Homes, and the decision today concluded that Section 79 powers could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety.
While respecting the court's decision this ruling changes very little. Later this month, the Coalition Government will be introducing the Localism Bill to Parliament, which will sweep away the last Government's controversial regional strategies. It is clear that top-down targets do not build homes they have just led to the lowest peacetime house building rates since 1924, and have fuelled resentment in the planning process that has slowed everything down.
On 27 May 2010, the Government wrote to local planning authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate informing them of the Coalition Government's intention to rapidly abolish regional strategies and setting out its expectation that the letter should be taken into account as a material planning consideration in any decisions they were currently taking. That advice still stands.
Today the Government's Chief Planner has written to all local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate confirming that they should have regard to this material consideration in any decisions they are currently taking.
Moreover, to illustrate the clear policy direction of the Coalition Government, the proposed clause of the Localism Bill that will enact our commitment to abolish regional strategies is being placed in the Library.
The Bill is expected to begin its passage through Parliament before Christmas.
We are determined to return decision-making powers in housing and planning to local authorities and the communities they serve, alongside powerful incentives so that people see the benefits of building. We will very shortly provide more details about one of the most important such incentives the New Homes Bonus Scheme, which will come into effect from April. This means that new homes delivered now will be rewarded under the scheme.
The Coalition Government remains firmly resolved to scrap the last Government's imposition of confusing and bureaucratic red tape. This was a clear commitment made in the Coalition Agreement and in the general election manifestoes of both Coalition parties. We intend to deliver on it."
"ABOLITION OF REGIONAL STRATEGIES
I am writing to you today following the judgment in the case brought by Cala Homes in the High Court, which considered that the powers set out in section 79[6] of [the 2009 Act] could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety.
The effect of this decision is to re-establish Regional Strategies as part of the development plan. However, the Secretary of State wrote to Local Planning Authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate on 27 May 2010 informing them of the Government's intention to abolish Regional Strategies in the Localism Bill and that he expected them to have regard to this as a material consideration in planning decisions.
I am attaching the proposed clause of the Localism Bill that will enact that commitment. The Bill is expected to begin its passage through Parliament before Christmas, and will return decision-making powers in housing and planning to local authorities. Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate should still have regard to the letter of the 27 May 2010 in any decisions they are currently taking ."
"[Counsel for Cala Homes] submitted that if the proposed abolition was a material consideration it would be irrational to give it any weight at this stage. However, [Counsel for the Secretary of State's] submissions have persuaded me that where the issue is one of weight rather than materiality, "never say never" is the appropriate response to a submission that, as a matter of law, any decision-maker in any case would be bound to give no significant weight to a potentially material factor. [Counsel for the Secretary of State] fairly acknowledged that even within the minority of cases in which the proposed abolition of regional strategies will be relevant, there may well be very few cases in which it would be appropriate at this stage of the Parliamentary and SEA process to give any significant weight to the proposal. But the Chief Planner's letter is concerned with the whole of the period prior to the enactment of the Localism Bill (if it is enacted), and the position will change as it progresses, or fails to progress. Even now there might be finely balanced cases where the very slight prospect of a very substantial policy change might just tip the balance in favour of granting or refusing planning permission. [Counsel for the Secretary of State] gave the hypothetical example of a large-scale residential proposal (which he referred to as a "new town", but the point would equally apply to a proposed extension of an existing settlement), which is proposed to be developed over the next 15-20 years, to which there are very strong site-specific objections, and where the sole justification for granting planning permission is the need to meet the requirement for residential development over the next 20 years in the regional strategy. In such a case it would not be irrational for the decision maker to give some weight to the prospect, however uncertain, that the regional policy justification for granting permission for such a long-term proposal may cease to exist within the short term. In such a case, to give even very little weight to the prospect of a change in policy might be to give that factor "significant" weight, significant in the sense that it might tip the balance in favour of refusing permission. This hypothetical example may well be an extreme case, but it does illustrate why it would not be safe for the Court to assume that at this stage there are no circumstances in which any decision-maker could rationally give some weight to the proposed abolition of regional strategies. In view of the uncertainty created by the legal obstacles referred to above any [decision-maker] who does think it appropriate to give some weight to the Government's proposal when determining an application or an appeal would be well-advised to give very clear and cogent reasons for reaching that conclusion, but that does not mean that there could be no case whatsoever in which any decision-maker might be able to give such reasons."
Ms Murphy's case in a nutshell
"6. Regional Strategies, including the South East Plan, had been revoked by the Secretary of State on 6 July 2010, and so the Inspector did not consider that Plan at the Inquiry ., following the decision in the Courts on 10 November 2010 [in Cala No. 1] the South East Plan has been reinstated, and is therefore part of the development plan. Notwithstanding this, the Secretary of State has clearly stated his intention to revoke all the Regional Strategies, including the South East Plan; and has stated that the revocation will be enacted by way of the Localism Bill. The Secretary of State has taken these matters into account in determining this appeal, but does not consider it necessary to refer back to the parties before reaching his decision. This is because, as the partial review of the South East Plan to address the regional need for gypsy and traveller caravan sites remains incomplete, policy H7 (requiring provision to be made in Local Development Documents) does not form a part of the Development Plan.
7. The Secretary of State has taken account of ODPM Circular 01/2006 as a material consideration in his determination of these cases. In reaching his decisions, he has also taken account of his announcement on 29 August 2010 of his intention to revoke it as he considers it to be flawed; and he gives less weight to the Circular. However, he is satisfied that the announcement does not raise any matters which would affect his decisions or require him to refer back to parties for further representations prior to reaching his decisions." (All emphasis added.)
Mrs Doran's case in a nutshell
"5. Regional Strategies, including the East of England Plan, which formed part of the development plan at the time of the inquiry, were revoked by the Secretary of State on 6 July 2010 . However, following the decision in [Cala No. 1] the East of England Plan has now been reinstated. This includes a revision concerning accommodation for gypsies and travellers which was published in July 2009 and which identified a need for a minimum for 15 additional pitches in Rochford. Notwithstanding this, the Secretary of State has clearly stated his intention to revoke all Regional Strategies, including the East of England Plan; and has stated that the revocation will be enacted by way of the Localism Bill. The Secretary of State has taken these matters into account in determining this appeal, but does not consider it necessary to refer back to parties before reaching his decision. This is because he considers that the need for additional sites, as expressed in the revision of the East of England Plan, has been taken into account by the Inspector in drafting the [Inquiry Report] on the basis of the evidence put to the Inquiry (see paragraph 12 below).
6. The Secretary of State has taken account of ODPM Circular 01/2006 as a material consideration in his determination of this case. However, in reaching his decision he has also taken account of his announcement on 29 August 2010 of his intention to revoke it as he considers it to be flawed; and he gives less weight to the Circular. However, he is satisfied that the announcement does not raise any matters which would affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision. (All emphasis added.)
The Inquiry Rules
If, after the close of an inquiry, the Secretary of State
(a) differs from the Inspector on any matter of fact mentioned in, or appearing to him to be material to, a conclusion reached by the Inspector; or
(b) takes into consideration any new evidence or new matter of fact (not being a matter of government policy),
and is for that reason disposed to disagree with a recommendation made by the Inspector, he shall not come to a decision which is at variance with that recommendation without first notifying the persons entitled to appear at the inquiry who appeared at it of his disagreement and the reasons for it; and affording them an opportunity of making written representations to him or (if the Secretary of State has taken into consideration any new evidence or new matter of fact, not being a matter of government policy) of asking for the reopening of the inquiry.
Natural justice
The Hanrahan appeal and Policy H7
"Provision for Gypsies and Travellers: Interim Statement
7.27 DCLG Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites sets out the policy and legislative framework for the Government's aim of reducing tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community, through sustainable site provision and effective enforcement. The Circular requires regional spatial strategies, on the basis of local authority Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments, to determine a strategic view of needs across the region and identify the number of pitches required for each local planning authority. It also requires local authorities to allocate suitable sites within their local development documents to meet the identified need set out in regional spatial strategies. The Department for Communities and Local Government's Circular 04/2007 Planning for Travelling Show People provides further guidance.
7.28 The regional planning body are currently (April 2009) undertaking a single issue review of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs in the region. As part of the review, local authorities in the South East have now completed their Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments in accordance with the Housing Act 2004.
7.29 The accommodation assessments will provide for the first time comprehensive, robust and credible data relating to the needs and requirements of the Gypsy and traveller community.
7.30 Circular 01/2006 states that where there is a clear and immediate need, local planning authorities should bring forward development plan documents containing site allocations in advance of regional consideration of pitch numbers, and completions of the Accommodation Assessments."
"4. The Secretary of State published the final version of the South East Plan (also known as the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East) on 6 May 2009. This replaced the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) but the Government did not adopt any policy on gypsies and travellers in that document. A review had been initiated in response to the publication of Government guidance requiring Regional Spatial Strategies to address the accommodation requirements of gypsies and travellers. This guidance is set out in Planning Circulars 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites (CLG February 2006), and 04/2007 Planning for Travelling Showpeople (CLG August 2007).
5. This Partial Review of South East Plan (Partial Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East: Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople) assessed the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers across the South East region and aimed to set district-based targets for pitch provision. It was agreed by the full South East Regional Assembly on 4 March 2009 and set out as a new Policy H7 to be incorporated in section 4 of the South East Plan. This Policy included targets for the number of new pitches that must be provided on caravan sites in each local authority area in the South East. Before being published and becoming part of the South East Plan, policy H7 was to be subject to an examination in public which would be considered by the Secretary of State before final publication.
6. An examination in public was held in February 2010, but the Panel report was never published due to the Government's intention to abolish the South East Plan. As such, this Partial Review does not form part of the published final version of the South East Plan."
"2.1 This document is the product of a single issue review of the South East Plan, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East. The review was initiated in response to publication of Government guidance requiring that Regional Spatial Strategies address the accommodation requirements of Gypsies and Travellers. Guidance states that we should identify the number of caravan pitches each local planning authority should provide (but not their location) and identify suitable land on which to accommodate them. This process takes account of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments produced by our local authorities, and a strategic view of needs across the region.
2.2 This guidance seeks to reverse underprovision for GTTS in recent decades, and thereby to reduce unauthorised sites and the tensions they can cause with other residents. In the South East 22% of GTTS caravans have no authorised place to stop, and their occupants are therefore legally homeless. Gypsies and Irish Travellers already fare the worst of any British ethnic group in terms of health and education. The shortage of authorised sites makes it more difficult for an already socially excluded and discriminated-against part of the community to access employment, health care, education and other services.
2.3 To address their needs for the period 2006-2016 we recommend that an additional 1,064 permanent residential pitches are provided for Gypsies and Travellers, and a further 302 for Travelling Showpeople. Taken together, the average local authority in the South East will need to find suitable land for 20 pitches, although individual requirements vary. This represents around 0.5% of the equivalent requirements for standard housing in the same period. The recommended approach includes a modest element of regional redistribution to widen opportunities for GTTS in areas with limited current provision, and thereby to improve delivery by broadening responsibility for new pitch provision."
"Local Planning Authorities will make provision in Local Development Documents to deliver 1,064 net additional permanent residential pitches for Gypsies and Travellers in the period 2006-2016, and 302 for Travelling Showpeople, as set out in Table H7a which details pitch requirements by local authority. Local Planning Authorities will also make appropriate provision in Local Development Documents to meet requirements for transit and temporary stopping purposes."
The Doran appeal and the East of England Plan
Relevance of the Advice produced by the Planning Inspectorate for use by Inspectors
"(c) where both local policy and RS policy are relied upon on the same issue, but the RS is relied on to a greater extent and if as a result of applying reduced weight to the RS the outcome is less certain or could change, then the parties' views should be canvassed ;
(d) where the parties' cases rely primarily on the RS, then the parties should be canvassed ."
Substantive/reasons arguments in Ms Murphy's case
"[Wycombe District Council] argued that, following revocation of RSS, it was for them as the local authority to assess and meet the needs arising in their area . The guidance accompanying the DCLG's Chief Planner's letter dealing with the implications of revocation made it clear that "local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand". Whether such need should relate expressly to defined district authority boundaries was less clear. Past co-operation between authorities in the Thames Valley area appeared to recognise that individual district boundaries did not reflect the pattern of living of the travelling community. Certainly, in considering at the inquiry possible locations where the appeals site occupiers could move to, the Council sought to have regard to sites in adjoining local authority areas within South Buckinghamshire. Having regard to the extent to which the situation within this wider area is relevant to the issue, my conclusion is that there is currently a local need for further Gypsy sites, and that this is a consideration which weighs in favour of the appeals."
"Having considered the arguments set out by the Inspector at [paragraphs] 179-185, the Secretary of State takes the view that there is no reliable indicator of currently unmet need in the area. However, he agrees with the Inspector that there is a personal need for accommodation by the 9 families occupying the appeals site and that the timetable for dealing with need issues within Wycombe has been established by the DPD process . He also agrees that the Inspector's conclusion that there is currently a need for further gypsy sites within the wider local area is a consideration which weighs in favour of the appeals."
"The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, in respect of granting permanent planning permission, the components of identifiable harm are considerable in respect of the harm to the Green Belt by reason both of inappropriateness and loss of openness and in respect of the adverse consequences for the AONB landscape. The very special circumstances to be weighed against that include the lack of availability of alternative sites, the personal circumstances of the occupiers of the appeals site and their right to respect for their private and family life and their home. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that these very special circumstances are significant but that, whether viewed individually or collectively, they do not outweigh, let alone clearly outweigh, the combined harm arising from the development involved - which would be in conflict with both national and development plan policy."
PPS3
"Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been reviewed to take into account policies in this PPS or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS ."
"Regional Spatial Strategies should set out the region's approach to achieving a good mix of housing. Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different types of households that are likely to require housing over the plan period. This will include having particular regard to:
Current and future demographic trends and profiles.
The accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families with children, older and disabled people.
The diverse range of requirements across the area, including the need to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers."
"Reference to the need to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers earlier in PPS3 would not mean that its paras 54 and 71 requirement to maintain a rolling 5 year supply of deliverable sites applied also to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. Policy on this was in C1/2006, to which PPS3 was cross-referenced."
"I add that I am far from clear that paragraph 71 of PPS 3 could be intended to apply to the provision of gypsy sites. There would have to be a separate analysis of such sites, since a shortfall or surplus on the one could not rationally create or provide a need for the other; yet PPS 3 is silent about that."
"It is necessary to say a little about how PPS3 is structured, because, on the face of it, by its title and by much of its content it is incapable of applying sensibly to the provision of pitches for Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites, not least because one important aspect is different as between housing provision and Traveller site provision, where there is an unmet need which can be dealt with through the development plan process. That is because temporary planning permission is a feasible solution, as an interim or transitional provision, as Circular 01/2006 makes clear in paragraph 45 for a Gypsy caravan site, but would be an absurdity if applied to bricks and mortar accommodation. One is moveable and the other is not.
It is my judgment that although there are some references to pitches for Gypsies in PPS3 it is abundantly clear that paragraph 71 does not apply. Paragraph 71 is dealing with the provision of bricks and mortar accommodation for permanent accommodation assessed through the RSS and DPDs. It is not, in my judgment, dealing with pitch provision."
Substantive/reasons arguments in Mrs Doran's case
"The Council argued that, in view of its commitment to allocate sites through the Allocations DPD, there was no need for a permanent permission, and that the proposal would be premature at this early stage in the preparation of the DPD . The DPD will provide a planned response to the need to provide gypsy site accommodation. Whilst the ODPM document The Planning System: General Principles explains that where a proposal is so substantial or the cumulative effect would be so significant it may be premature in respect of the DPD which is in preparation, this is a small-scale proposal in a District where planning permission has been granted for only three other pitches since 2006 . I do not consider that the granting of an indefinite planning permission would prejudice preparation of the Allocations DPD, or that a temporary planning permission is necessary on the ground of prematurity."
"It is common ground between the main parties that there is an immediate and unmet need for gypsy accommodation in Rochford . Policy H3 of the former RSS set out minimum levels of provision for the period 2006-2011, and it specified that at least 15 additional residential pitches should be provided in Rochford during this period: only three permanent pitches have been provided since 2006, leaving a balance of 12 . The final report of the GTAA was also published in 2009. The extract from the report submitted by the appellant shows the calculation of need for accommodation in Rochford as 12 additional pitches for 2008-2013 which is broadly consistent with the level of provision in the former RSS. I consider that there is an immediate need for a relatively high level of permanent gypsy pitches, and this should carry significant weight."
"The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector's analysis at [paragraph 51] of the issue of prematurity. He does not agree with this analysis or with the Inspector's conclusions that the granting of an indefinite planning permission would not prejudice preparation of the Allocations DPD and that a temporary planning permission is not necessary on grounds of prematurity. On the contrary, he considers that granting a permanent permission in advance of the Council completing the process of identifying sites through the Allocations DPD would be contrary to the intentions of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 . The Secretary of State does, however, accept that there are other arguments for allowing the appellant and her family to remain on the site for a further short temporary period, and he agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons [he gave] the concerns raised by local residents do not count against the appeal proposal."
"While, for the reasons given in paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the Secretary of State has tempered the weight which he gives to the East of England Plan and to the guidance in Circular 1/2006, he has taken account of the fact that, as agreed by the main parties there is an immediate need for a relatively high level of permanent gypsy pitches in Rochford; and he has given significant weight to that as a material consideration in concluding that an extension to the current temporary permission is justified to allow time for the identification of permanent sites ."
"Prematurity
17. In some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD. A proposal for development which has an impact on only a small area would rarely come into this category. Where there is a phasing policy, it may be necessary to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity if the policy is to have effect.
18. Otherwise, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will not usually be justified
- Where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question.
19. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the planning authority will need to demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process."
"The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision."
"It is an agreed position in the statement of common ground that at present there are no alternative available sites in the District . Policy H7 in the emerging Core Strategy explains that pitches will be allocated in line with the number specified in the former RSS . The emerging Allocations DPD puts forward seven possible options for gypsy and traveller site provision . Each of these sites is in the Green Belt , which covers about 76% of the District , and given the extent of this designation, it seems likely that any future gypsy site will be located there. It is anticipated that the DPD will be adopted by the end of 2011 . The appellant suggested that the timetable would not be achieved . Whilst I do not doubt the Council's intention to proceed expeditiously with preparation of the DPD, it may be difficult to maintain the programme should any complications or unforeseen events arise."
"Even if the DPD remains on target for adoption, consideration needs to be given to the time required to establish new sites, bearing in mind that the existing temporary planning permission requires occupation of The Pear Tree to cease on 28 October 2011. The appeal site itself is one of the options for permanent gypsy accommodation identified in the emerging Allocations DPD, and I consider this separately below . The Council suggested that sites could come forward in advance of adoption, once the outcome of the examination was known. However, the timetable only includes a maximum of six months from the examination itself to adoption, and, with the exception of the appeal site, this may not be sufficient to allow any necessary land to be acquired, planning permission gained and new sites to be laid out. The potential absence of an alternative site the occupants of The Pear Tree following the expiry of the temporary planning permission adds some further weight to their personal need for permanent accommodation."
"The Secretary of State accepts the agreed position that there are at present no alternative available sites in the District. However, in the absence of any firm evidence to substantiate the Inspector's assertion that the Council may find it difficult to maintain its programme for the adoption of the allocations DPD, he sees no reason to reject the Council's expectation that the DPD will be adopted by the end of 2011. Similarly, the Secretary of State has seen no evidence to substantiate the Inspector's pessimism with regard to the Council's ability to bring forward permanent sites once the outcome of the examination into the Allocations DPD is known, and so he does not consider it appropriate to take such a possibility into account at this stage. Were such delays to materialise, the Secretary of State considers that it would be more appropriate to deal with their consequences towards the end of his proposed extension to the period of the temporary consent."
Conclusion
Ms Murphy's standing under s. 289
"Where the Secretary of State gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part VII against an enforcement notice the appellant or the local planning authority or any other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Secretary of State to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court."
Overall conclusion
