- High Court rejects challenge concerning the provision of Gypsy and Traveller pitches (R (Whitehead) v Mid Sussex District Council)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Did the OR mislead members by relying on a misinterpretation of Policy DP11? (Ground 1(i))
- Did the OR fail to draw material considerations to the attention of members? (Ground 1(ii))
- Did the Council fail to have due regard to equality needs?
- Were the members misled by the approach in the OR to off-site provision? (Ground 2)
- Case details
Planning analysis: The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge of the decision of a local planning authority to grant planning permission for a mainly residential development. A relevant development plan policy had required either on-site provision for Gypsy and Traveller pitches or that a contribution should be made for off-site provision, subject to certain criteria. The challenge was concerned with the decision of Mid Sussex District Council (the Council) to accept a financial contribution rather than require on-site provision. The court rejected arguments that the relevant officer’s report (OR) had misled members in several ways, including by misinterpreting the relevant development plan policy, failing to have due regard to equality needs, and by its approach to off-site provision. Written by Howard Leithead, Barrister at No5 Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial