CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 mai 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 14837/89                       by Cornelius JONES                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 May 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 14 December 1988 by Cornelius JONES against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 March 1989 under file No. 14837/89;           Having regard to the information submitted by the respondent Government on 20 October 1989 in reply to the Rapporteur's request of 11 July 1989 (Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission) and the applicant's replies;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1953.   He is a gypsy, is married and has seven children and he lives in Shelfanger, Norfolk.   He is represented before the Commission by Mrs.   K. Sampson, Gypsy Liaison Officer for the area, and by Messrs Watkins, Stewart and Ross, Sudbury, Suffolk.           The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.           In order to provide a better life for his family, the applicant bought a piece of land on 11 March 1987 with a view to settling on it.   The land fell, and falls, within the area of the Shelfanger Supplementary Planning Guidance (adopted on 2 February 1983) for the purposes of applying Norfolk Structure Plan policies. The general purpose of the relevant policies is to allow limited developments within villages whilst restricting new dwellings outside. The applicant's plot falls outside the village guideline of 1983.           On 16 February 1988 the applicant applied for planning permission for the construction of a bungalow on his plot.   The application was refused on 8 April 1988, and on 18 May 1988 Enforcement Notices were served in respect of the caravan the applicant had put on the land and an access he had created.   The applicant appealed against the refusal of planning permission and the Enforcement Notices.   The appeal was rejected by an inspector on 5 December 1988 because (a) development "would represent a notable exension of [the] built-up frontage into the countryside which would seriously harm the character of [the] immediate surroundings"; (b) the (village) guideline included the then existing developed frontages, but was anxious to avoid further extension of the ribbon of development away from the centre and (c) notwithstanding the applicant's personal circumstances, including the emphasis he placed on the education of his children, and notwithstanding policies specifying that special considerations should be given to the provision of gypsy accommodation, the applicant's particular circumstances were not such as justified setting aside "compelling country-side policy and rural environmental objections" (they frequently stayed outside the area; sites were occasionally available in the district and there was a possibility that the applicant would become eligible for council accommodation).   COMPLAINTS           The applicant alleges violations of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.   THE LAW           The Commission has considered the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   It considers that the other complaints are dependent on the principal allegation, that he was wrongly denied the planning permission to erect a bungalow on his own land.           Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides as follows:   "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."           The Commission considers that the restrictions on the applicant's use of property (i.e. that he is not allowed to build a bungalow on it) must be examined under "the control of use" rule in the second paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1). The question of the justification for the interference resulting from the refusal of planning permission must therefore be examined under that paragraph, to establish whether the interference was "lawful", whether it served the "general interest" and whether it was proportionate and therefore could be "deemed necessary".           The applicant does not contest that the refusal of planning permission was lawful and indeed, if he did contest its lawfulness, he would have been required to appeal to the High Court in this respect.           The condition of "general interest" leaves a wide margin of appreciation to the national authorities.    The Convention organs will respect the domestic authorities' judgments as to what is "general interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation or is arbitrary.           The function of planning legislation in the United Kingdom is to balance the protection of the natural and the built environment with the pressures of economic and social change.   Again, the applicant does not contest this "general interest", which the Commission finds to be reasonable.           As to proportionality, the Commission recalls that, under the second paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1), the State may enforce such laws as it "deems necessary".   In the application of this test of necessity regard must be had to the principle of respect for peaceful enjoyment of possessions which is enunciated in the opening sentence of Article 1 (Art. 1).   For this reason the Commission must also examine "whether a reasonable relationship of proportionality existed between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised", or in other words, "whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest in this respect and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned" (Eur. Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 18, para. 52 and Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, loc. cit., p. 26, para. 69).           The Commission notes that the restriction on development applied when the applicant bought his property.   The applicant's argument is that because there exist Government circulars setting out guidelines for preferential treatment of gypsies in housing matters, and because the applicant is a gypsy, the domestic authorities should have granted him planning permission to erect a bungalow outside the normal guideline.   The applicant does not contend that others, who are not gypsies, have been granted planning permission in similar circumstances to him, although he does state that a number of local developers have approached him with offers to buy the plot, and he submits that these offers would not have been made if the developers had not received intimation from the District Council that planning permission would be granted to them.           The Convention does not guarantee the right to develop property purchased in an area outside a development guideline, and, bearing in mind that the inspector in his appeal report considered at length the question of whether the applicant's individual circumstances were sufficient to outweigh this basic policy position, and the State's wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Commission finds that any interference with the applicant's property right cannot be held to be disproportionate.           Accordingly, any interference with the applicant's property rights was justified in the terms of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and this part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The Commission has also examined the applicant's other complaints as they have been submitted by him.   It notes that they are all consequential upon the refusal of planning permission, and further finds no indication that his appeals against the refusal of planning permission were rejected for any reason which may have been connected to the fact that he is a gypsy.   After considering these remaining complaints as a whole, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.           It follows that these complaints are also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission           (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)