Human Rights and Travellers

Mr Yates, a Gypsy, owned land in the council’s area. He created four plots for stationing caravans and a number of Gypsy families brought their mobile homes onto the plots to live. He then sought planning permission for a private Gypsy caravan site. The council refused planning permission and took enforcement measures that would require residential occupation to cease.

The occupiers appealed to an inspector appointed by the secretary of state. They said they were acting in accordance with national policy (which is that, in the absence of any duty on public authorities to provide sites, Gypsies should establish sites for themselves on their own land). The inspector allowed their appeal because the council had not shown that the interference with the occupiers’ human rights to “respect” for their homes (article 8) was justified. A judge overturned that decision but the secretary of state appealed.

The Court of Appeal decided (by a two to one majority) that the inspector had been right. He had taken into account that the land was ordinary countryside (that is, not green belt or protected land), that hardship would be caused to the families by the loss of these homes, that the council’s policies would not be likely to lead to the approval of an alternative private site, and that there was a national shortage of council-provided sites for Gypsies. He had weighed against those factors, the environmental impact of the development and the fact that the site had initially been established without permission. This was a “balancing” exercise and the inspector had been entitled to find that the balance favoured the occupiers.