Section: Gypsy & Traveller Sites

Case Law Update

Small v North Somerset Council [2008] EWHC (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 245 (Nov)

North Somerset Council adopted a local plan which contained a policy for gypsy and traveller sites but indicated that no land had actually been allocated for such sites in the Council's area.

A Planning Inspector recommended that the Council adopt a Development Plan Document to identify such sites, consistently with Circular 01/2006, but did not direct amendment of the existing local plan.

A claim for the quashing of the local plan was rejected by the High Court. Despite the force of the claimant's arguments, the quashing of the existing plan would not, of itself, achieve any benefit for gypsies or other travellers.

Hillingdon LBC v Collins & Others [2008] EWHC (Admin)

Hillingdon Council gave Notice to Quit to several residents of one of its gypsy caravan sites and brought a claim for possession. The reasons given for seeking possession were arrears of rent, non-payment of service charges and serious antisocial behaviour.

The defendants, who had no security of tenure, denied the arrears and the allegations of nuisance. They relied upon Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1 Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1.

The claim was transferred to the High Court to await the outcome of decisions of the Court of Appeal (in Smith v Buckland) and of the House of Lords (in Doherty v Birmingham). With the benefit of those judgments, a High Court Judge transferred the claim back to the county court for trial.

The Judge gave directions as to how this class of case should be handled in the light of the recent judgments. In particular, he held that there should be a determination of the question - whether the decision of the council to claim possession had been reasonable.

Massey v Secretary of State [2008] EWHC Admin, [2008] All ER (D) 118 (Dec)

The claimants were refused planning permission to establish a temporary travellers site on a farm.

A Planning Inspector allowed an appeal in relation to some occupiers but excluded the claimants on the ground that they did not satisfy the definition of "gypsies and travellers" in Circular 01/2006.

The High Court dismissed an appeal against that decision. The inspector had been entitled to find on the facts that the particular claimants were not of a nomadic habit of life.

South Staffordshire District Council v Secretary of State [2008] EWHC Admin, [2008] All ER (D) 78 (Dec)

A gypsy family sought permission to live in caravans stationed in the green belt. Having regard to the special educational needs of the children and the absence of any alternative site, a Planning Inspector granted limited temporary permission.

Staffordshire District Council appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The inspector had not misdirected herself, as she had appropriately considered Circular 1/2006 para 45.

Bromley LBC v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2008] EWHC 3145 (Admin)

A Romany gypsy applied to Bromley Council for planning permission to station two caravans on land in the Green Belt. The Council refused permission and issued an Enforcement Notice.

On appeal, a Planning Inspector granted temporary permission for two years - on the basis that within that period the Council would be developing other sites to which the applicant could move.

The High Court rejected an application to quash that decision. The inspector had exercised statutory powers in accordance with the relevant Circulars (11/95 and 01/06).

R(McCarthy) v Basildon DC [2009] EWCA Civ 13

The claimants were gypsies and the owners of green belt land on which they had stationed their homes. Planning permission for that use was refused. Appeals were dismissed and Enforcement Notices issued.

Both the Basildon Council and the Secretary of State refused even temporary or personal planning permission. Notwithstanding that, no alternative lawful sites were available and the Council resolved to take direct action (physical eviction) to enforce the Notices.

The High Court quashed that decision but the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal. On the facts, the Council had not misdirected itself and had been entitled to decide to evict. Before implementing that decision it would need to receive and consider any homelessness applications and make arrangements for performing any duties arising.

Legal Update


Enter your email address to receive our e-bulletins advising on updates to the many sections of our website.

We will not share your email address with others or use it for any other purpose.

Reporting on Nov 2008-Jan 2009

Quick Links

Login here for current editions

username: password:

New subscribers and free review

Archive Issues Reporting Periods