Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment
A decision by Slough BC to refuse planning permission for a caravan park in a 'strategic' green belt has been endor...
A decision by Slough BC to refuse planning permission for a caravan park in a 'strategic' green belt has been endorsed by the High Court.

Deputy judge Andrew Gilbart backed a government decision to uphold the council's refusal of permission for 100 caravans to provide accommodation for construction workers on the new terminal five at Heathrow Airport.

The project's backer had asked the court judge to quash the inspector's decision and order the local government secretary to have the scheme reconsidered.

The court was told that unauthorised caravans were originally sited there in July 2002. The council issued an enforcement notice as it was in breach of planning control.

The owner then sought temporary permission for a change of use of the land from agricultural to residential caravan use, with 100 caravans, hard-surfacing, car parking, seven facility buildings, two electrical switch rooms, fencing, landscaping, a gate house and a sub-station for a three-year period.

However, first the council then the inspector refused him permission. The inspector, in the decision that was challenged, found that it would amount to a 'substantial and notably urbanising form of development to the significant detriment of the openness of the area'.

He added that the site was in a 'strategic' green belt between Slough and Greater London, which had been identified as being an area where the London green belt was 'at its most fragmented and vulnerable'.

Judge Gilbart ruled that although there was a strong case on need, the weight to be attached to that was for the inspector to decide, bearing in mind there was also a strong case on harm.

Corporate services

Housing, planning & environment

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.