A. W. & C. Barsby: Legal Research and Publishing

These are the Notes and Queries pages for Caravan Sites and Mobile Home Parks: the Legal Framework (2nd ed.) ISBN 0 9521625 7 1. Chapter 6 - Gipsies

6-1 For an article on gipsy culture in Europe, see The Economist for 12-18 May 2001.

6-1 The Traveller Law Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, contains important anti-discrimination provisions. Link to UK Parliament site for text of the Bill.

6-1 For a case involving alleged discrimination against gipsies, see Hallam v Avery [2001] UKHL 15, The Times 27 March 2001. An early case on discrimination involving gipsies was Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton [1988] 2 WLR 17.

6-2 For a recent case, see Wrexham County Borough Council v National Assembly of Wales, The Times 4 July 2003. Here a traditional gipsy family which had given up the travelling way of life was found not to be within the definition.

6-21 Circular 1/94 cancels the remaining parts of DCPN ("Development Control Policy Note") No. 8, part of an earlier series of guidance notes, which dealt with gipsy sites.

6-28 Link to ODPM for chapter 5 of the Good Practice Guidance, on Deciding not to proceed with eviction.

6-29 For case on considering permission for a gipsy caravan site on green belt land see Butler v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin. 590, [2002] JPL 428. [21/9/02]

6-31 An important decision on granting injunctions against gipsies, to stop them using land for unlawfully stationing caravans, in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter, The Times 9 November 2001. The Court of Appeal made clear that before granting an injunction to enforce the law, judges should consider whether the injunction is appropriate and necesssary in the public interest and should take into account the gipsy's right to respect for family and private life, under Article 8 of the ECHR. The case is reported at [2002] 1 All ER 425 and [2002] 1 WLR 1359.

6-36 In the case of Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, The Times 9 November 2001, a gipsy applied for planning permission to station a caravan on land. Permission was refused, and on appeal the planning inspector upheld the decision, taking into account the fact that the gipsy had refused the offer of a house to live in. The Administrative Court allowed the gipsy's appeal, on the ground that if a gipsy had a genuine aversion to living in a house, it would be contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR [see 6-39 and 6-40 in the text] to hold his refusal to accept a house against him.

6-36 In R (Smith) Dagenham London Borough Council [2002] EWHC 2400 (Admin) the Administrative Court decided that there was no unlawful discrimination against gipsies because they could be evicted under s. 2 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

6-38 Following the case of Chapman, the Court of Appeal in Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 819 has stressed that consideration must be given to the question of whether a person has a cultural objection to living in conventional housing. [21/9/02]

6-38 In Matthews v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 815, [2002] JPL 716 the court rejected an argument that the time limit for challenging a planning inspector's decision was a breach of human rights. [21/9/02]