Town and country planning: green belt

Second defendant travelling showmen applying for planning permission for use of site as headquarters - claimant local planning authority failing to determine application in time - second defendants appealing - parties agreeing inappropriate development in green belt - inspector finding very special circumstances outweighing harm to green belt - secretary of state agreeing and allowing appeal - claimants seeking to quash secretary of state's decision - claim dismissedBromley London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others: Queen's Bench Division: Administrative Court: Sullivan J: 5 July 2001The second defendant, a group of travelling showmen, applied to the claimant local planning authority for permission to use a site, which fell within the green belt, as their permanent headquarters.

The claimants failed to determine their application within the requisite period, and the second defendants appealed to the first defendant secretary of state.

The second defendants accepted that their proposal would amount to an inappropriate development within the green belt, but contended that there were 'very special circumstances', such as the tradition of showmen in the area and the desperate need for such a site, which would outweigh any harm caused.

The second defendants had conducted a search in the area and subsequently submitted that no suitable alternative site could be found.

The claimants contended that the search methodology employed by the second defendants was flawed, as they had not considered splitting up the residential and commercial elements of the use.

In his decision letter, the inspector stated that the main parties had agreed that the proposal would be an inappropriate development in the green belt, and that the main issues were, accordingly: whether it would be harmful to the appearance and character of the green belt; and whether there were any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm.

The inspector concluded that the proposal would cause some harm.

He considered the 'very special circumstances' and found that they depended primarily upon: the extent of the need; if the need was genuine; and whether there were any suitable alternative sites that could meet that need.

He concluded that a substantial case of need remained, and that the extended searches showed there was little prospect of finding a suitable alternative site.

Consequently, he found that very special circumstances did exist and recommended that planning permission be granted.

The secretary of state agreed, and allowed the second defendants' appeal.

The claimants sought to quash the secretary of state's decision, contending that it was inadequately reasoned.

They submitted, among other things, that although the inspector had dealt with the issue of search methodology, his conclusions were in tentative terms, leaving it open for the secretary of state to reconsider the matter.

However, as the secretary of state did not expressly deal with that issue or endorse the inspector's reasoning, readers of the decision letter were left in doubt as to his views on the inspector's reasoning.Held: The claim was dismissed.

The decision had to be read as a whole, and did not have to refer to each and every one of the inspector's conclusions.

The secretary of state noted that there had been criticisms of the second defendants' search methodology, but went on to agree with the inspector's conclusion that the general approach was satisfactory.

As he agreed with the inspector's overall conclusion, it was common sense to infer that he also agreed with the inspector's reasoning.

It could not be said that the secretary of state's views were unclear just because they were not specifically referred to.James Findlay (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the claimants; Timothy Corner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Paul Brown (instructed by Walker Morris, of Leeds) appeared for the second defendants.