Connors & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Tort Law
- Human Rights Law
- Planning Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves five claimants seeking to quash decisions dismissing their appeals for planning permissions to use Green Belt land for Traveller sites. The court examined claims of discrimination and breaches of ECHR and the Equality Act. The court found no differential treatment or legal error. The decisions were held lawful and rational, emphasizing the balance between protecting the Green Belt and individual rights under Article 8 ECHR.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE LEWIS:
INTRODUCTION
These are applications made by five Claimants pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“ the 1990 Act ”) to quash decisions of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government dismissing an appeal against a refusal of planning permission. Two of the Claimants, Mrs Doran and Mrs Lee, also apply for permission to appeal under section 289 of the 1990 Act against a decision of the Secretary of State dismissing an appeal against an enforcement notice.
In brief, three of the Claimants are Irish Travellers. They are Mr Edward Connors, Mr Miley Connors (who is not related to Mr Edward Connors) and Mrs Doran. Two of the Claimants are Romany Gypsies. They are Mr Sines and Mrs Lee. They all sought planning permission to make a material change in the use of land to enable them to station caravans or mobile homes on various sites. The sites were all in the Green Belt. The Secretary of State decided to dismiss all of the appeals.
Four of the Claimants, those represented by Mr Masters, seek to challenge a policy adopted by the Secretary of State that he would consider directing that all appeals involving Traveller sites in the Green Belt be decided by him rather than by an inspector appointed on his behalf. Mr Masters submits that that policy is unlawful in that it involves discrimination contrary to Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”) or a breach of the public sector equality duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 . All five Claimants contend that the individual decisions taken by the Defendant to dismiss their individual appeals were unlawful.
The judgment is lengthy. First, this is in part because the judgment involves five different claims. The facts in relation to each Claimant, and his or her family, are different. It is necessary to set out the facts of the individual cases in order to determine whether or not each individual Claimant has been treated lawfully. Secondly, the length of the judgment reflects in part the very large number of points taken by the Claimants in their claim forms, skeleton arguments and oral submissions. Even then, this judgment focuses on the principal claims advanced to determine whether the decisions are lawful or not. The judgment does not seek to deal with each and every point raised although all the matters raised by the Claimants have been carefully considered.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Planning Permissions and En