High Court gives permission to Travellers for judicial review of decision by council to decline to determine application

The High Court has given permission for judicial review of a planning decision by Crawley Borough Council in a dispute over land used by two Irish traveller claimants.

Karen Ridge, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard that Teresa Casey and Stacey Smith lived on a site that was the subject of enforcement proceedings and separate applications for planning permission.

Crawley had alleged an unauthorised change of use to a residential caravan site with associated unauthorised operational development.

Running alongside was a separate application for planning permission for material change of use to a Gypsy and Traveller site.

This was refused and the matter went to an appeal, which was allowed to the extent that a temporary three years planning permission was granted although this was personal to the applicants.

That decision was quashed by consent due to an error in the inspector's approach to local planning policies on noise.

It was re-heard in January 2024 and dismissed the next month for reasons concerned with flood risk. That appeal decision was then subject to judicial review proceedings which remain ongoing.

Meanwhile, a further application for planning permission was submitted for a Gypsy and Traveller site but Crawley declined to determine this, leading to the renewed challenge before Ms Ridge.

The claimants first ground said Crawley in deciding to rely on the April 2021 enforcement notice had not had regard to the purported deficiencies in the evidence base which the new planning application sought to remedy.

Ms Ridge said the planning merits of the proposal “have shifted as proceedings have progressed”

Crawley had to determine whether there were good and proper reasons not to entertain another application for planning permission, but “in the unusual circumstances of this case there is an argument as to whether that discretion was fairly or rationally exercised given the chronology events and the changing landscape of the planning merits”, which meant the first ground was arguable.

The deputy judge also concluded that another ground was arguable as Crawley's decision to decline to determine the second planning application “did directly affect the question of the rights of the claimants to a fair hearing / determination.

“I have concluded that it is arguable that the discretion was unfairly/irrationally exercised and I therefore conclude that it is also arguable that the decision unlawfully affected the Claimants' article 8 rights.”

Mark Smulian