A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as persons of nomadic habit. It was a question of fact for each planning officer. Human rights law did not operate to alter the statutory definition. Chapman concerned enforcement measures operating against Gypsies, not whether a person was a Gypsy or not. Administrative policy is to be settled by parliament not the courts
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 835, Times 04-Jul-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 24
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited – Mills v Cooper QBD 1967
Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
Cited – Greenwich London Borough Council v Powell HL 1989
A person could be a gypsy for the purpose of section 16 of the 1968 Act if he led a nomadic way of life only seasonally. . .
Cited – Regina v South Hams District Council, ex parte Gibb and Another, Regina v Gloucester Cc, ex parte Davies CA 8-Jun-1994
The meaning of ‘Gypsy’ under the Act requires some element of travelling, and should include that this was associated with the means of earning a living. In applying the statutory definition of gypsies the actual words used are to be used, taking . .
Cited – Horsham District Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Admn 13-Oct-1989
The court asked whether a traditional gypsy who had lived permanently on a site for a long time, was a gypsy within section 16 and entitled to be excepted from local planning policy restraint on development.
Held: The criterion ‘nomadic way of . .
Cited – Hearne v National Assembly for Wales and Another CA 10-Nov-1999
When looking at whether a person was a gypsy so as to qualify for additional consideration, the test was to be applied at the time when the decision was made and not when the application was made. It was acknowledged that an applicant could change . .
Cited – Regina v Shropshire County Council, ex parte Bungay Admn 1991
The court upheld a planning decision that a gypsy family had retained their nomadic way of life notwithstanding that they had not travelled for many years. Fifteen years after the gypsy family had stopped travelling because of the father’s age and . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Smith) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another Admn 19-Nov-2002
The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, . .
Cited by:
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
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.183698