The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The planning guidance required authorities to provide sites, but against other planning priorities. The Inspector had found little planning impact from the unlawful development, and the effect on their family life substantial.
Held: The judge had erred. The Inspector had correctly applied Article 8 rights.and without convert them into ‘the broader proposition that the needs of gypsies ‘must be met’.’ (Auld LJ dissenting)
Judges:
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld, The Right Honourable Lord Justice Wall And The Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1248, Times 14-Oct-2004
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hedges and Hedges v Secretary of State for Environment v East Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 15-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Leominster District Council ex parte Pothecary CA 28-Oct-1997
A building was erected without planning permission. The local planning authority chose not to serve an enforcement notice but rather had invited an application for retrospective planning permission.
Held: The fact that a building has already . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Appeal from – Chichester District Council v First Secretary of State and others Admn 29-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Botta v Italy ECHR 24-Feb-1998
The claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday.
Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s . .
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Human Rights
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214642