Section: Travellers and Gypsies

Aversion to Conventional Housing

Ms Codona and her extended Gypsy family lived in six caravans on land without planning consent. Mid-Bedfordshire Council took enforcement action, and Ms Codona made a homeless application, seeking an alternative site where her extended family could relocate. In her application, Ms Codona expressed a cultural aversion to conventional housing.

Mid-Bedfordshire Council arranged bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation until it could offer permanent accommodation - either in adjacent houses, or on a site. Ms Codona argued that any accommodation constructed with bricks and mortar was unsuitable because of her cultural aversion to conventional housing. This included the B&B accommodation and the possible offer of adjacent houses.

The Council's decision was upheld on review and on appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal, deciding that:

There was no absolute rule that dictates that an offer of conventional housing to a Gypsy with a cultural aversion to it could not be regarded as the provision of suitable accommodation.
Such an aversion is relevant and must be taken into account. However, if there is not available land on which a Gypsy applicant could site a caravan, a council has the alternative option of providing conventional bricks and mortar accommodation.
The B&B temporary accommodation was not unsuitable. However, it could be regarded as unsuitable if it was used for too long before suitable permanent accommodation, or land to site a caravan, was provided.

Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire DC

Reasons for a Decision Must be Clear

Mrs Porter, a Gypsy, bought a plot of land in 1985 and occupied a mobile home on it. She was in breach of planning controls and the planning authority repeatedly refused planning permission.

South Bucks DC took enforcement proceedings to prevent her continued occupation of the plot. She again applied for planning permission and the Council again refused it. She then appealed against the refusal to grant planning permission to the Secretary of State.

An appointed inspector recommended conditional permission be given. The Secretary of State accepted the Inspector's recommendation. The Council appealed to the High Court, but was unsuccessful.

On a further appeal, the Court of Appeal decided that the reasons put forward by the Inspector had been insufficient and allowed the Council's appeal.

Mrs Porter appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords allowed her appeal and gave guidance on the correct way for an official to discharge a duty to give reasons. Fundamentally, the reasons for a decision must be clear in explaining:

why the matter was decided as it was; and
what conclusions were reached on the principal important controversial issues.

The guidance highlights the importance of disclosing how issues of law or fact are resolved.

South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2)

Section: Travellers and Gypsies

Aversion to Conventional Housing

Reasons for a Decision Must be Clear

Legal Update

Reporting on July-Sept. 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods