Spencer Benjamin Hedges and Heather Maria Hedges v Secretary of State for the Environment & East Cambridgeshire District Council [1996] EWHC Admin 240
Hedges Gypsy site need is an early High Court judgment showing why a lack of authorised Gypsy pitches can be a planning-policy consideration in its own right, rather than merely another part of an individual family’s hardship.
The Inspector’s appeal decision was quashed because he had not adequately dealt with the undisputed evidence that there were no available council, tolerated or private pitches in the district.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [1996] EWHC Admin 240
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Crown Office List
- Judgment date
- 15th November 1996
- Judge
- Mr Moriarty QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Case number
- CO 1548/96
What Hedges Gypsy site need decided
The Hedges family sought permission to station a mobile home on land at Whitecross Road, Wilburton. The Inspector dismissed the appeal, giving decisive weight to countryside policy.
It was common ground, however, that there were no available pitches in the district on council sites, tolerated sites or private sites. The High Court held that this was not adequately addressed in the Inspector’s reasoning.
Need for sites was a separate planning issue
Mr Moriarty QC held that the relevant national and structure-plan policies had two sides. They sought to protect the countryside, but they also addressed the need to provide suitable Gypsy sites.
The Inspector had mainly treated lack of alternative accommodation as part of the family’s personal circumstances. He failed to grapple with the wider planning-policy issue of unmet site provision.
That was a main issue and required adequate reasons.
The absence of up-to-date local policy mattered
The case arose during a policy gap. The adopted local plan pre-dated important national guidance and supplementary guidance was only partial. That made it particularly important for the Inspector to address both sides of the national and strategic policy framework.
The court was not deciding that unmet need automatically outweighed countryside protection. It held that the issue had to be confronted and reasoned through.
The visual-impact challenge failed
The claimant also attacked the Inspector’s finding that the development would be visually intrusive. That challenge failed. Visual impact was a matter of planning judgment and the court found no legal basis for interfering with it.
The Article 8 argument is historical
The judgment pre-dated the Human Rights Act 1998 coming fully into force. The court rejected the Convention argument on the law as it then stood.
Modern Gypsy and Traveller planning decisions must be considered under the current human-rights and equality framework. See our current pages on Gypsy and Traveller sites and human rights and planning enforcement.
The policy documents in Hedges are no longer current
Hedges discussed Circular 1/94 and local policies from the 1990s. Those documents have long since been replaced. The continuing value of the judgment is the need to identify and give reasons on the real planning issues, including unmet site provision where it is material.
Read the full Hedges judgment
The full High Court transcript is held locally in the Planning Geek case law library. I have not found a stable free primary full-text copy online. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Hedges Gypsy Site Need Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026