Mark Hughes v the First Secretary of State and South Bedfordshire District Council
Mark Hughes v the First Secretary of State and South Bedfordshire District Council
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 838, 23 June 2006. Concerns planning permission for a gypsy caravan site in a green belt. Appeal by S against the quashing of his decision not to grant planning permission in respect of land in a green belt on which gypsies were living in breach of planning control. SoS had dismissed his inspector's recommendation of temporary retrospective planning permission be granted to H on the basis of lack of alternative available sites for H to live on and the disruption of the gypsy families' healthcare and their children's education. SoS concluded that the children's educational needs did not amount to the existence of very special circumstances which would justify the granting of permission. SoS submitted that the judge had erred on ruling in H's favour on appeal. SoS in his decision letter had attached less weight to the adverse effects of moving on the children's education when reaching his decision than the inspector. "Held": appeal allowed. Planning permission had been properly refused because planning considerations reflecting the interests of the community as a whole outweighed the families' interests, in particular the educational requirements of their children.
HUGHES V FIRST SOS AND ANOTHER
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWCA Civ 838, 23 June 2006. Concerns planning permission for a gypsy caravan site in a green belt. Appeal by S against the quashing of his decision not to grant planning permission in respect of land in a green belt on which gypsies were living in breach of planning control. SoS had dismissed his inspector's recommendation of temporary retrospective planning permission be granted to H on the basis of lack of alternative available sites for H to live on and the disruption of the gypsy families' healthcare and their children's education. SoS concluded that the children's educational needs did not amount to the existence of very special circumstances which would justify the granting of permission. SoS submitted that the judge had erred on ruling in H's favour on appeal. SoS in his decision letter had attached less weight to the adverse effects of moving on the children's education when reaching his decision than the inspector. "Held": appeal allowed. Planning permission had been properly refused because planning considerations reflecting the interests of the community as a whole outweighed the families' interests, in particular the educational requirements of their children.
HUGHES V FIRST SOS AND ANOTHER
England and Wales--1543-