Gypsy caravans — Enforcement notices — Whether development contrary to planning policies aimed at protecting countryside — Whether enforcement notices constituting unjustifiable interference with gypsies’ Article 8 rights — Whether claimant local planning authority under duty to attempt to provide adequate number of gypsy sites — Claim allowed
The claimant council, as local planning authority, issued four enforcement notices complaining of the use by the second to fourth defendants, and their families, of an area of land owned by the third defendant for the siting of caravans for residential purposes. The gypsies appealed against the notices to the first defendant Secretary of State under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. An inspector overturned the enforcement notices and granted planning permission for the development.
The inspector found that: (i) the development was not contrary to the underlying aims of local and structure plan policies aimed at protecting the character and appearance of the countryside; and (ii) upholding the enforcement notices would constitute an unjustified interference with the gypsies’ right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On the Article 8 point, he noted that the UK was not under an obligation to provide an adequate number of gypsy sites, but he considered that it was important for local planning authorities to make adequate gypsy site provision in their development plans.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector would have been entitled to find that any breach of planning policy had been justified by other material considerations. However, he appeared to find that there was no breach, and this was incorrect. Moreover, although the inspector had noted that the UK was under no obligation to provide an adequate number of gypsy sites, he had, in effect, held that Article 8 none the less carried with it a duty upon the council, as the relevant local planning authority, to exercise their planning powers to help achieve that end in their area. Article 8 imposed no such obligation. Accordingly, the inspector’s decision could not stand and the planning permissions would be quashed.
Richard Langham (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as London agent to Chichester District Council) appeared for the claimants; Tim Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; David Watkinson (instructed by Community Law Partnership) appeared for the second to fourth defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
