Enforcement notice — Gypsies — Caravan site — Second defendant forced to stop travelling due to ill health — Whether gypsy status continuing — Claim allowed
The claimants were the local planning authority for an area that included the appeal site, which lay within the metropolitan green belt. The second defendant and her extended family of Romany gypsies had been travelling in the area for approximately eight years when they were obliged, following the second defendant’s ill health, to cease their nomadic lifestyle. The family subsequently moved into static caravans situated on the appeal site. The claimants issued two enforcement notices alleging unauthorised development of the site. The operations notice related to operational development by the removal of topsoil, the construction of perimeter bunding and the laying of hardcore to form a hardstanding area. The use notice concerned the material change of use of the site arising from the deposit of hardcore and the siting of caravans. The second defendant appealed against the two notices.
An inspector appointed by the first defendant allowed the appeals, quashing the enforcement notices and granting planning permission for the retention of the entire development, subject to conditions. He concluded that it would be unreasonable and unjust to conclude that a person who had been born a gypsy should cease to retain his or her gypsy status simply because ill health or infirmity restricted the ability to travel.
The claimants challenged the inspector’s decisions under section 288(1)(b) and 289(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They contended, inter alia, that the inspector had erred in concluding that, at the time of his decisions, the second defendant and her family were gypsies within the meaning of section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector had erred in concluding that the second defendant had retained gypsy status, and his decision could not be supported in the light of recent Court of Appeal decisions. Gypsy status should be assessed at the time at which the appeal was being considered, and a stated intention to settle permanently and to abandon a nomadic lifestyle could mean that gypsy status would be lost. Loss of status did not depend upon the decision to abandon a nomadic lifestyle being made voluntarily: Hearne v National Assembly for Wales The Times 10 November 1999.
Gypsy status could continue following a temporary break in travelling, but the ability to travel was a fundamental characteristic of a nomadic way of life. Where, as here, an individual or family expressed an intention permanently to retire from travelling, they could no longer be considered to have a nomadic lifestyle. They might regain it later if they once again started to travel but it could not be said to continue: Wrexham County Borough Council v National Assembly for Wales [2002] EWCA Civ 835; [2004] JPL 65.
Michael Bedford (instructed by the solicitor to Basildon District Council) appeared for the claimants; David Watkinson (instructed by Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the second defendant; the first defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
