Barnet Council goes to High Court to challenge a planning inspector’s go ahead for a travellers’ caravan site in Mays Lane

An application has been made to the High Court to challenge the go ahead for a travellers’ caravan site on a field in Green Belt land off Mays Lane, Barnet, on the grounds that the decision was inaccurate.

A planning inspector approved the plan for pitches for two travellers’ caravans because the needs of two gypsy families with seven young children “tipped the balance” in their favour.

Barnet Council had previously refused permission but after a lengthy planning inquiry, the inspector, Graham Chamberlain, decided that the “very special circumstances” of the two families outweighed any harm to the Green Belt.

In seeking to reverse the decision through a judicial review, the council will have to indicate why it believes the inspector’s conclusion was factually flawed.

Mr Chamberlain had concluded that the best interests of the “seven young children” in case would be served by “establishing a secure permanent home” for them at the appeal site”.

But in challenging the decision, the council is expected to argue that the evidence showed that in fact only four or five children would live on the site, with just one of them enrolled in school.

Therefore, the council could insist that the inspector’s decision was legally unsound.

Quinta Village Green Residents’ Association – which opposed the caravan site, and which was disappointed by the go ahead given by the inspector – has welcomed the council’s High Court challenge.

When he overturned the council’s refusal to grant planning permission, Mr Chamberlain acknowledged that a travellers’ caravan site on a two-acre paddock, previously used for grazing horses, would result in “some modest harm to the character and appearance” of the Mays Lane area.

However, he concluded that the balance in favour of the scheme changed significantly when the personal circumstances of the two gypsy families were factored in, especially the best interests of the seven children.

“Indeed, personal circumstances tip the balance in favour of the scheme when all other considerations are contemplated cumulatively…It follows that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have been demonstrated.”

Members of the residents’ association have now been told of the legal challenge which is being made by the council close to what would have been the end of the six-week period for a judicial review.

In going to the High Court, the association hopes the council will emphasise that Green Belt protections carried substantial weight under national planning policy.

Inappropriate development of the kind proposed, should only be allowed in “very special circumstances”.

While the welfare of children was rightly a primary consideration, it had to be based on accurate evidence.

The inspector had relied on the advice of the barrister for the brothers Patrick and J Casey, who had made the planning application, but by seeking a judicial review the council implies these submissions were incorrect and failed to consider the actual circumstances of the children involved.