Hilda Rafferty & Bessie Jones v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Hilda Rafferty & Bessie Jones v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Refusal of planning permission for the appellants' intended gypsy caravan site engaged Article 8(1) ECHR, as their home is their caravan and the refusal denied them a stable base. However, the inspector had already weighed all relevant factors, including the appellants' needs, and the harm to the area outweighed the need for the site. Therefore, even if Article 8(1) was engaged, the outcome would have been the same and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Hilda Rafferty; Appellant: Bessie Jones; 1st Respondent: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Respondent: North Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Proportionality, Planning Permission
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Article 8 ECHR Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Gypsy and Traveller Rights Proportionality Planning Permission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilda Rafferty

Appellant

Bessie Jones

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Respondent

North Somerset Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of planning permission for a gypsy caravan site engaged Article 8(1) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the inspector and judge adopted too narrow an approach to Article 8(1)
  3. 3 Whether the balancing exercise under Article 8(2) was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of planning permission for the appellants' intended gypsy caravan site engaged Article 8(1) ECHR, as their home is their caravan and the refusal denied them a stable base. However, the inspector had already weighed all relevant factors, including the appellants' needs, and the harm to the area outweighed the need for the site. Therefore, even if Article 8(1) was engaged, the outcome would have been the same and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed