Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants appealed on the basis that the authorities had failed to make proper allowance for their human rights.
Held: Some of the appeals succeeded, because the planning authority had to consider the defendants human rights before acting, and they had not done so. They had to be satisfied that the legitimate aim of protecting the environment outweighed the gypsies’ right to respect for private and family life.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson And Lord Justice Tuckey
Citations:
Gazette 29-Nov-2001, Times 09-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1549, [2002] 1 WLR 1359
Links:
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998 6(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
Cited by:
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Cited – North West Estates Plc v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 22-May-2003
There had been many attempts to enforce and resist enforcement of a planning notice.
Held: The landowner was not entitled now to challenge the application for injunctive relief, where he had not appealed the validity of the enforcement notice. . .
Appeal from – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – Davis and Others v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council CA 26-Feb-2004
The claimants were travelling showmen who had purchased land, and after failing to apply for permission, moved onto the land and began to live there.
Held: The cultural identity of travelling show-people and their status, as a matter of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Human Rights, Housing
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166647
