Gypsies — Definition — Nomadic lifestyle — Inspector allowing appeal against refusal of planning permission for gypsy caravan site — Claimant council arguing that occupants of caravan no longer gypsies — Whether cessation of nomadic lifestyle for reasons of ill health leading to loss of gypsy status — Claim dismissed
The second and third defendants were a married couple, of gypsy descent. They applied unsuccessfully to the claimant council for retrospective planning permission for a private gypsy caravan site, and the council issued an enforcement notice in respect of that use of the land. The couple appealed to the first defendant, and a public inquiry was held.
At the inquiry, evidence before the inspector showed that the husband suffered from a heart condition that prevented him from travelling for work, and that the couple had, as a result, ceased to lead a nomadic way of life. The council argued that this meant that the couple could not be defined as gypsies for planning purposes, since the relevant definition of that term, adopted in government circulars from section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, required a nomadic lifestyle, with a connection between travel and means of livelihood. The couple contended that a gypsy who was unable to travel because of ill health did not thereby cease to be a gypsy. The inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission. The council challenged that decision by way of judicial review, citing a number of cases to support the definition of “gypsy” for which they contended.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
A person who was indisputably a gypsy, having come from a traditional travelling family and having led a nomadic lifestyle for many years, did not cease to be so simply because he became unable to travel to find work by reason of ill health. It was important to remember that the Planning Acts did not contain a statutory definition of “gypsy”. Rather, there was only a definition “borrowed” from other legislation for the purposes of central government policy advice. It was also dangerous to treat judicial pronouncements, made in a particular factual context, as though they were enactments of general application: R v South Hams District Council, ex parte Gibb [1995] QB 158 distinguished. To find that a person ceased to be a gypsy when they became too old or infirm to travel for work would be contrary to common sense and common humanity, and would also contravene the requirement, under the European Convention on Human Rights, for government policy to show respect for home and private life. On the facts of the case, the inspector had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had.
Robin Green (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the claimants; Stephen Cottle (instructed by the Community Law Partnership) appeared for the second and third defendants; the first defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
