London borough in legal challenge over planning inspector traveller site decision

The London borough applied to the High Court in July of this year seeking to challenge the inspector's decision, which gave the green light for pitches on a 0.8-hectare plot to accommodate two Irish travelling families.

The planning application, which asked for a material change of use for the undeveloped parcel of land, was submitted in 2023.

Brent refused permission in December 2023, finding that the proposal constituted "inappropriate development in the Green Belt" and would result in material harm to openness.

Under this finding, the council said that the very special circumstances advanced by the applicant(s) did not clearly outweigh the inappropriateness of the development and its potential harm to the Green Belt.

The council also said it did not consider that the intended occupants of the site came within the definition of gypsies and travellers as set out in the Glossary of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

In addition, it said that it did not believe the personal circumstances of any of the intended occupants established "very special circumstances" that would outweigh harm to the Green Belt.

The council also raised concerns about the impact on great crested newts, tree protections, the absence of a flood risk assessment, and the absence of a transport statement.

At the planning appeal, the council chose not to defend its previous grounds for refusing the application, which questioned whether the occupants came under the definition of gypsies and travellers.

It also chose not to defend its refusal based on tree protection measures and the absence of a transport statement.

This meant the main issues for the planning inspector to consider were:

• whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, when considering policies concerned with development in areas at risk of flooding;
• whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and its effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt;
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
• the effect of the proposal on biodiversity, with reference to Great Crested Newts and bats; and
• if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations to establish the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.

Ultimately, the inspector allowed the appeal after finding that the scheme would adhere to the development plan and there were no other considerations which outweighed this finding.

The council's judicial review challenge is thought to relate to the inspector's consideration of the Green Belt, according to a local democracy reporter.

A council spokesperson said: "We are unable to comment on this matter at this time, as it is the subject of ongoing litigation."

The Planning Inspectorate has been approached for comment.

Adam Carey