Earl Shilton Action Group, R (on the application of) v Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council & Ors

J U D G M E N T

Mr Justice Hickinbottom:

Introduction

1. The Claimant is a residents’ association which seeks to challenge the decision of the Defendant planning authority (“the Council”) dated 10 July 2013, to grant planning permission to the Second Interested Party, for a ten-pitch caravan site on land known as Dalebrook Farm, Leicester Road, Earl Shilton, Leicestershire.

Both Interested Parties are Romani Gypsies. For the last 25 years (since Commission for Rational Equality v Dutton [1989] QB 783), Gypsies have been recognised as a distinct ethnic group. As a matter of domestic law, they are recognised as having a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 ; and it is now well-established that, by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state has a duty to “facilitate the Gypsy way of life” for ethnic Gypsies ( Chapman v United Kingdom [ 2001] EHRR 18 , especially at paragraph 96), which way of life requires “special protection” ( DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3 , especially at paragraph 182). There has been a long history of local authorities failing to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites, which I briefly described in R (Knowles and Knowles) v Secretary of State Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 19 (Admin) at [5] and following, resulting in a policy imperative now to do so.

The grant of planning permission in this case was made following consideration of the application by the Council’s Planning Committee at a meeting on 25 June 2013 when, in accordance with the advice and recommendation of an officer’s report, it approved the proposed development.

4. The Claimant relies on three grounds. It is submitted that the officer’s report, which the Committee essentially followed, was misleading as to the relevant national policy in two respects (Grounds 1A and 1B) and as to local policy (Ground 2). In addition, the Committee were not informed of the most up-to-date assessment of need for Gypsy and Traveller sites, which arguably showed a lesser need than that in the older assessment upon which the officer’s report was based (Ground 3).

5. On 24 September 2013, His Honour Judge David Cooke granted permission to proceed on ground 1A but refused it on grounds 1B and 2. Ground 3 has only been raised subsequently. There are therefore before me the substantive application on Ground 1A, and applications for permission to proceed in respect of Grounds 1B, 2 and 3, the first two being by way of renewal. It has been sensibly ag