CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 mars 1994

.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. 20490/92                       by ISKCON and 8 Others                       against the United Kingdom         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 8 March 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 24 April 1992 by ISKCON and 8 Others against the United Kingdom and registered on 13 August 1992 under file No. 20490/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to :   -      reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the       Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government       on 3 June 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 13 September 1993;   -      the further information submitted by the applicants on       16 February and 7 March 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicants are the International Society for Krishna Consciousness Ltd. ("ISKCON") and eight individuals who are members and, in part, officers of ISKCON. The applicants are represented by Mr. S. Ruparell, solicitor, of Messrs. Singh and Ruparell, solicitors, London.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         ISKCON acquired a 19th century manor in 1973.   The local authority had confirmed, by letter of 27 March 1973, that "on the information available the last use of the premises, namely a nurses' residential college, falls squarely within the same use class as a residential theological college in connection with the promotion of the religion of Krishna Consciousness.   In the circumstances, planning permission is not required.   Although the previous use was largely residential, I gather that it was also partly educational and this appears to be the situation with the use now proposed".         On 25 January 1983 ISKCON entered into an agreement ("the Section 52 Agreement") with the local authority that, inter alia, ISKCON would not permit more than 1,000 persons to visit the manor on any one day except with the consent of the council;   the council granted consent for more than 1,000 persons to be present on six days in the year (festival days), subject to various conditions.   The agreement referred to a previous enforcement notice which had been served in 1981 and against which ISKCON had appealed, and was expressed to be without prejudice to the council's rights to serve further enforcement notices.   The council withdrew the existing enforcement notice, and ISKCON agreed not to make any claim for costs in the appeal.         On 8 January 1987 the local authority served an enforcement notice on ISKCON alleging that, by using the land for "the purposes of a residential educational college and a religious community and public worship and public entertainment in connection with religious festivals" ISKCON had materially changed the use of the land, and that this material change of use amounted to a breach of planning control. In the annex to the enforcement notice the local authority referred to the Section 52 Agreement, and alleged that, following repeated complaints from the local residents, the local authority had been made aware that the number of persons attending on non-festival days was increasing and had exceeded the 1,000 person limit.         An Inspector held an inquiry into appeals by ISKCON against the enforcement notice (and related matters).   The inquiry was held on 9 November 1987, 21 November 1988, 29 November to 2 December, 6 to 9 December, 14 and 19 to 21 December 1988.   In the 136 page report of the inquiry the Inspector found, as matters of fact, as follows:         "B.   Religious and Social         1.   The Krishna Consciousness movement, a traditionalist branch       of the Hindu faith, was founded by Srila Prabhupada, a sanskrit       scholar who emigrated to New York from India, in 1966.   Its aim       is to stimulate interest and convert people world-wide to the       spiritual principles of the Vedic culture of India as expounded       in the scriptures of the Bhagavad Gita (The Bible of India).       There are now 200 ISKCON centres throughout the world.         2.   Devotees of Krishna Consciousness regard it not just as a       religion, but as a whole way of life, constantly developing their       love of god by rendering devotional service ("Shakti-Yoga").       This includes the purification of the consciousness by constant       chanting of the Holy Names of God.   (The Hare Krishna Mantra).         3.   Other forms of devotion regularly practised are the study of       the scriptures, guided by priests and teachers, the performance       of "puja" or acts of devotion to the deities at a shrine or at       home, the offering of sanctified food to the deity before eating,       "prasad", and pilgrimages to a shrine or "tirtha" on holy days       and festivals.         4.   On these occasions it is customary to take "Darshan" or       audience of the deities and offer silent private prayers as well       as participating in the services performed by the priest,       "Arati", and taking part in congregational chanting.         5.   Any Hindu shrine contains deities which are regarded as gods       themselves in the form of wood or stone.   The deities at the       Manor are of marble statues, worthy of the highest veneration.         6.   Hindu tradition demands that they be moved only to achieve       significantly better facilities for worship within their existing       "dharma" or area over which they have exercised their influence.       Any other move would be an act of desecration.         7.   The first ISKCON shrine was set up in London in 1969 in a       rented flat in Bury Place, and deities were installed there.   In       1979, following enforcement proceedings and subsequent       litigation, that temple and the deities were moved to premises       in Soho Street, London, where ISKCON still have a temple with       deities and resident priests, and a similar type of worship to       that at the Manor.         8.   Devotees of Krishna Consciousness are required to observe the       "regulative principles", strict rules as to diet and temperance.       Single persons live a monastic existence.   The movement has a       strong social conscience and tradition of counselling the       distressed and afflicted.         9.   The current Hindu population of Britain is estimated at       750,000 with between 120,000 and 200,000 in North London, 55,000       of these being within Brent and Harrow and forming the main       catchment area for the temple congregations.         10.   There are few Hindu temples in London, compared with       Birmingham, which has 4 to serve a population of 40,000.   Those       in north-west London serve mainly the Swaminarayan faith, whose       followers do not worship Radha and Krishna.         C.   The Function of the Manor         1.   The Manor is said to be the only "Math", or training college       for Hindu priests in the United Kingdom.   It welcomed as students       anyone who wished to devote all or part of their lives to the       understanding of the faith and devotion to Krishna.       ...         4.   It is a "Tirtha" or place of pilgrimage.   Coachloads come       from Birmingham to worship at the Manor.       ...         6.   The shrine is essential to the teaching of priests,       regardless of any public worship.       ...         8.   The following are the principal activities at the Manor:              a.   A residence (Ashram) for between 40 and 50 single            devotees, priests and novices.            b.   A centre for the training of full time Hindu priests            and missionaries.            ...            i.   Devotional services in the temple between 0430 and 2115            hrs. daily, with extended programmes on Sundays, to which            all members of the public are free to come.            ...            l.   The conduct of one or two day festivals on the 3 most            important festivals in the Hindu calendar, namely Ramnavani            (April), Janmasthnmi (July-September), Diwali (October-            November), and other minor festivals on less important holy            days."         In Section D of his Report the Inspector set out the history of the events leading up to the service of the enforcement notice, the material part of which may be summarised as follows:   (1)    In 1974 a neighbouring resident complained about large numbers of people living at the Manor, and services being advertised.   A newspaper article in the summer of 1974 referred to 1,000 people celebrating Krishna's birthday at the Manor.   A weekend festival in August 1975 attracted 5,000 visitors on each day and further festivals in November 1975 and August 1976 attracted not more than 2,500 people in any one day.   Parking on neighbouring fields ameliorated adverse effects on he village.   (2)   On 30 May 1978 planning permission was granted for the construction of a car park with 127 spaces.   The application had been made at the request of the planning authority.   The work was completed in 1979 at a cost of £20,000.   (3)   A newspaper article in August 1979 reported a forecasted attendance of 10,000 people for the Janmasthami festival.   A resident reported 600-800 cars parked in the fields and 11 coaches being parked in lay-byes in the area on Sunday 12 August.   (4)   The 1980 Janmasthami festival was held on Saturday/Sunday 31 August after notification had been given that it would be on the Sunday and Monday.   It was estimated that 14,000 people had attended each day and 15,000 attended a separate evening festival on Tuesday 2 September, when traffic blocked the village for several hours.   By 1980 the Manor had become generally known as "The Temple".   Counts carried out by Mr Jeffers in September 1980 indicated that on 3 successive Sundays between 498 and 760 vehicles entered the Manor with a flow of through traffic through the village of between 841 and 1,161 vehicles. in the same period.   At the same time between 1,127 and 1,502 persons were counted into the Manor.   Further counts on 4 Sundays in October 1980 showed between 587 and 1,119 persons entering the Manor.   (5)   In July 1984 ISKCON sold their Worcestershire property, Croome Court, for economic reasons.   (6)   A handbill inviting visitors to the Janmasthami Festival on 8 September 1985 stated that coach parties should write to the Manor in advance.   It also said that every Sunday a special Festival programme was held from 4 pm to 9 pm featuring dramas, video shows, lectures, children's classes.   Full Prasad, Bhajans (congregational chanting) and Arati (temple services)).   It was estimated that 13,000 people attended, over 2 days.   (7)   Counts carried out from September 1985 to September 1988 showed that there have regularly been more than 1,000 visitors to the Manor on non-festival Sundays, the average attendance being in the region of 1,500.   The 1986 Janmasthami Festival attracted 1,184 vehicles on Sunday 24 August,   682 on Monday 25 August and 1,955 on Wednesday 27 August, with visitors counted at 4,631, 2,339 and 8,781 on those 3 days.   A nearby resident described the Festival as seeming to go on all the week and having only 21/2 hours sleep on one night.   (8)   Previous proposals for a residential farm community in the Midlands and community halls in areas where the Hindu population were concentrated, such as Brent, Southall and East London had not materialised.   Following the initial adjournment of the Inquiry into the Enforcement Notice appeal a search was made for an alternative temple site and that at Dagger Lane was identified.   ISKCON indicated they required a site 3 times the site of that at the Manor, and the buildings proposed would cover about 21/2 times the floor area.   The deities would be moved to the new temple and the Manor would become primarily a place of spiritual retreat with a shrine for the benefit mainly of residents who would number up to 50.         In Section E of his Report the Inspector found that the main house was a Grade II listed building (having been added to the list in 1985) and the buildings and most of the grounds were within the Letchmore Heath Conservation Area, designated in 1969.   The site was within an extensive area of the Metropolitan Green Belt and this notation had not changed since 1954.         Whilst stating that the legal implications of these facts were matters for the Secretary of State, the Inspector set out in detail the conclusions which he had drawn from the above facts.   The Inspector noted that it was quite clear that the notice was aimed at discontinuing all festivals, and that there was no intention to include any saving for the 6 days mentioned in the Section 52 Agreement.   The Inspector did not consider there was any necessity for it to do this. He concluded that the enforcement notice was valid and that the appeal failed on each of the grounds relied on by ISKCON.         As to Ground (c) (the appeal on the ground that the breach of planning control had not taken place), the Inspector found on the evidence that residents at the Manor lived as a community, in a regime somewhat similar to a monastery, devoted single mindedly to the service and promotion of their religion.   The bond between all the occupants of the Manor was the religion of Krishna Consciousness, and they worked and ate together, and shared the house and its grounds, each resident having only a part of a shared bedroom for his or her sole occupation. That is communal living as the reasonable man would understand it.         As to public worship, the public were permitted to attend services at all times.   The Manor was proud to keep open house, and the gates were locked only for a few hours during part of the night.   No visitor had to ask for any permission to enter.   The services in the temple were conducted on exactly the same basis as in an Anglican or any other church, although there was no parish roll or register of communicants.   Members of the public were invited to celebrate weddings, with a religious ceremony after the civil one, and this also could be described as an element of public worship.         As to public entertainment in connection with religious festivals, the publicity given in the past, and attractions promised at the festivals, with references to firework displays, vegetarian feasting, spectacular pandal performances, dances, drama and music and video shows indicated that the visitors did indeed come not just to worship in the temple or offer silent prayers to the deities, but also to be entertained, albeit against a religious background.   The festivals had many of the attractions of a fête, and more besides.         As to Ground (b) (the appeal on the ground that the matters alleged did not breach planning control), the Inspector concluded that the primary use of the Manor was fundamentally different in many ways from a residential theological college and that there had been a material change of use.         It was the practice at the Manor to extend open doors to all comers at almost all hours of the day and night in a way which no college would do, and which would not be found at any church, even a major cathedral in a city.   It was, as one resident wrote "rather like having Canterbury Cathedral in the middle of a small English village".         The Inspector expressly considered ISKCON's argument that the effect of the Section 52 Agreement was to found an estoppel.   He noted that it was an agreement under seal voluntarily entered into and as such the law of contract applied.   Furthermore the recital (viii) clearly implied that the parties envisaged that some further enforcement notice might be served if it was deemed expedient.   It was in any event clear from the authority cited that a planning authority could not by virtue of a Section 52 Agreement fetter its discretion to carry out its statutory function to serve another enforcement notice in the future.   The rights and duties of the parties conferred by the Section 52 Agreement should be determined by the law of contract, the enforcement notice according to the statutory provisions.   The existence of the Section 52 Agreement did not estop the planning authority from serving the enforcement notice and the Section 52 Agreement had no bearing on the Ground b. appeal, which failed.         As to Ground (a) (the ground of appeal that planning permission ought to be granted), the Inspector summarised the primary issues, which were in his view all of equal relevance in setting out the conflicting priorities.   These included:         "vi. Does the importance of the Manor as a shrine and the need       to provide places of worship for the Hindu population:-            a.   constitute those very special circumstances which            justify development in the Green Belt in any event;              b.   outweigh any specific and convincing planning            objections on any of the grounds noted above and justify an            exception to Green Belt and other Development Plan            policies?         vii. Whether, given the long history, the presumption in favour       of development and the previous decisions by the planning       authority, any injury to amenity can be met by suitable and       enforceable conditions."         The Inspector's conclusions on these issues were as follows:         "37.13   I turn next to issue (vi), very special circumstances.       I accept that the Manor has become a special place of worship and       pilgrimage for the Hindu community in this country, and that       there appear to be very few Hindu places of worship in North       London and nearby counties.   The Manor is of special importance       as the home in Britain of ISKCON's founder.   I do not doubt that       the traditional religious rites and ceremonies, in sylvan       surroundings, bring inspiration and spiritual comfort to many who       visit.   No one could ignore the national and international       concern, and the social issue posed by the possibility of       restricting participation in the worship at the Manor and the       celebration of the Hindu festivals.   Whilst I have not adopted       verbatim the findings of fact suggested by Counsel for the       appellants in respect of the planning authority's attitude of       partial acceptance over the years, I accept the basic thesis       behind them, and indeed they are largely borne out by the       planning authority's own evidence.         37.14   The appeal of Krishna Consciousness and the Hindu       population have both increased substantially in the past 15       years.   It is very clear from the voluminous documents that       regular attendances at the Manor over and above those at festival       times have also increased significantly in recent years.   The       Manor has become an important place of worship and pilgrimage.       This is unfortunate in view of the fact that it is situated in       one of the most vulnerable areas of Green Belt, so very close to       London, in a village of high profile public activities.   The sale       of Croome Court and concentration of activities at the Manor       seems to have flown in the face of those constraints which should       have been obvious in view of the history of concern by the       planning authority through the 1970s.         37.15   I take due note that the Manor has been allowed to be used       for public worship and public entertainment at festivals for many       years.   I do not consider however that this implies toleration       of the status quo, but rather that the planning authority have       been doing everything they can to avoid the confrontation which       the present enforcement notice has provoked.   I note that some       residents accept that they have had less to complain about from       noise and disturbance in recent years, but it is in the nature       of things that uses which have caused conflict are toned down       when there are enforcement proceedings pending.   When I bear in       mind the numbers of people and vehicles involved, and the type       of activities, such as weddings and feasts which have been       publicised in the past, I have to take into account that a       planning permission for a use which is geared to attracting       people is very likely to result in an upsurge of activity.         37.16   The appellants maintain that because the earlier       enforcement notice and the Section 52 Agreement provided for a       tolerance of up to 1000 visitors on non-festival days, this       figure at any rate should be regarded as acceptable in planning       terms.   By the same token they imply that the 6 Festivals should       be accepted.   I do not consider this should necessarily be so.       A figure of 1000 visitors, particularly if it is to be regarded       as 1000 visitors in addition to the staff and students whose       attendance is part and parcel of the determined use of a       theological college, is to my view too large a crowd to bring       into the village in any event on a Sunday.   Taking Mr Campbell's       occupancy of 3.85 occupants per car, which seems surprisingly       high, it will still generate some 260 in and out vehicle       movements, which will certainly have a considerable effect on the       Sunday evening peace and quiet for the nearest residents.   I       conclude therefore that there is no justification for taking 1000       visitors as an acceptable norm.         37.17   I am in no doubt that any church of any faith or       denomination in a small village or indeed in any closely built       residential area, which regularly attracted 1000-1500 people for       late evening services on Sundays, and crowds of up to 12000 for       festivals 3 times a year, would encounter objections from the       host community.   The intimate small scale closely built character       of a home counties village simply cannot accommodate the crowds       attracted to a tirtha in the Indian sub-continent, especially       when most of the worshippers or pilgrims have to come in their       own private transport or in coaches.   When religious meetings on       this scale are held in the United Kingdom such as those by Billy       Graham and other evangelists, Earls Court or Wembley Stadium are       booked.   I note that Mr Sharman proposes to hold the next Hindu       youth festival in such place, acknowledging that the temple       premises in Wandsworth are not large enough.         37.18   It also seems to me that the fact that the tenets of       Krishna Consciousness prescribe that there must be devotions       virtually 24 hours a day, with comings and goings very late at       night, are particularly intrusive in a small village.   The       appellants are not prepared to even consider curbing their night       time activities and maintain that it would be contrary to their       faith to do so.   I understand what they say, but this inevitably       makes the use very difficult to fit into a residential village       where most people travel some distance to work, and come home       expecting a measure of peace and quiet, essentially at weekends       when the use of the Manor is at its most active.         37.19   I take due note of the very large number of letters and       petitions, addressed to HM the Queen, the Prime Minister and       members of HM Government, Members of Parliament, the planning       authority and myself relating to this matter.   Unfortunately many       of these are based on the premise that there is some antipathy       to the Hindu religion, which is not the case.   Inevitably many       of these letters come from people far away from Letchmore Heath       who are not aware of the full circumstances and the problems       posed by the attraction of crowds into a small English village.       I take particular note however that there are also some letters       from local residents supporting the appellants, and there was       some support for the alternative access, if that had proved a       practical proposition.         37.20   In his submissions counsel for the appellants expressly       withdrew any allegations of religious or racial prejudice which       had been made against the planning authority.   In this, as in       very many other planning decisions it is necessary to weigh the       needs of one group or interest against others, and the needs of       religious or ethnic minorities, however important, cannot       necessarily be allowed to override those constraints which have       to apply to everyone, in planning as in other matters, in the       interests of a tolerant and free society in a small and crowded       country.         37.21   The appellants appear to have recognised that the       attraction provided by the Manor has outgrown the capacity of       Letchmore Heath to accommodate those it attracts, with the risk       that the very basis of that attraction, a shrine in a peaceful       village in the country, could be destroyed.   The aims of the       proposal for an alternative temple indicates the growth in       popularity which is anticipated and the number of worshippers       which might have to be catered for.   No further consideration       seems to have been given however to acquiring a country mansion       in a more remote spot, or a redundant ecclesiastical or       educational building closer to the centres of the Hindu       population.   I appreciate that a very high standard of Puja has       been developed at the Manor, which is appreciated by a large       congregation, but I am not convinced that the Manor is the only       place where this can be carried on, and it appears that as       recently as 8 years ago a Math could readily be set up at Croome       Court and quickly given up when economic conditions so dictated.         37.22   It was suggested that need justified an exception to, or       setting aside Green Belt policy altogether in this particular       case.   However, when I weigh on one side the needs of the       appellants and their congregation and on the other not just for       the Green Belt policy, but the actual disquiet and inconvenience       to residents, and add to that the positive duty which       Conservation Area status imposes on the decision maker, not just       to preserve but also to enhance the character of Letchmore Heath,       I consider that the interests of the village and its residents       should prevail, and that there is insufficient justification for       setting aside that weight of policy as well as other specific and       convincing planning objections.         37.23   The decision on the merits should in my view also take       into account the decision in respect of the Dagger Lane site.       If planning permission is granted for a new temple, then my       conclusions on the merits in respect of the enforcement notice       have that much more force, because an alternative site has been       provided, in accordance with the advice in Annex B of Circular       22/80.   However if there is to be no new temple, it still seems       to me that the combination of policy and clearly identifiable       physical disadvantages to the use at Letchmore Heath constitute       spcific and convincing planning objections of such force that       they amply outweigh and displace the arguments on the grounds of       need, even though those arguments then become that much stronger.         37.24   I turn finally to conditions.   Every encouragement is       given by Circulars 22/80 and PPG Note 1 to temper enforcement       action by granting planning permission subject to suitable       conditions.   In this case the planning authority have shown       themselves willing for at least 10 years to devise some machinery       whereby the religious aspirations of the appellants and their       devotees can be equated with the interests of the residents.       Whilst it is not for me to disagree with the legal interpretation       of the Section 52 Agreement, it does seem to me that the       appellants have chosen to disregard the spirit if not the letter       of it, and I can only conclude that they are unwilling on       principle to restrict the number of people attending their       premises in the interests of the neighbouring residents.         37.25   It seems to me that a condition limiting numbers would be       the only basis on which the damage to amenity caused by the scale       of the public worship and public entertainment activities could       be remedied.   Given the past history however I have the gravest       doubts as to whether such a condition could be enforced, and the       very fact that such a condition is necessary points to the       fundamental unsuitability of the premises for activities of this       kind on anything but a purely local scale.   I have to agree with       the planning authority that restrictions on numbers have already       been proved not to work.   I can think of no other form of       condition which would remedy the damage to the amenities of the       village caused by the present activities, and I do not consider       therefore that a conditional permission is appropriate   ..."         On 20 March 1990 the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the Inspector's report, largely confirmed the enforcement notice (including his conclusions as to estoppel), with the variation that ISKCON had two years rather than six months to cease the prohibited use, and a minor amendment was made to the use to which the Manor and land could be put.         ISKCON exercised their statutory right of appeal under Section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (now Section 289 of the Town and Planning Act 1990).   Their Notice of Motion included as a ground of appeal that ISKCON were prepared to enter into a new Section 52 Agreement, but did not repeat the estoppel argument.   Mr. Justice Kennedy, giving the judgment of the High Court on 31 October 1991, noted that it was no longer challenged by the applicants that there had been a material change of use of the Manor. Instead, the applicants argued, inter alia, (i) that the Inspector and the Secretary of State had failed to have proper regard to the willingness of the applicants to enter into a new Section 52 Agreement and (ii) that the Secretary of State had been wrong to accept the Inspector's conclusion that the planning objections outweighed the arguments of the applicants on the ground of need.         As to the former submission, the Court held that, as was clear from the Inspector's report, negotiations for a further Section 52 Agreement had broken down.   There had been an earlier agreement, but for present purposes it was not material.   So, even accepting that the appellants were willing to enter into an agreement on their own terms, the position was, as Counsel for the Secretary of State graphically described it, like one hand clapping.   There was nothing for the Inspector of the Secretary of State to take into account.         On the latter point, ISKCON criticised the Secretary of State's acceptance of the Inspector's conclusion in paragraph 37.23 of his report that even if planning permission were not granted in respect of the Dagger Lane site,              '...the combination of policy and clearly identifiable            physical disadvantages to the use at Letchmore Heath            constitute specific and convincing planning objections of            such force that they amply outweigh and displace the            arguments on the grounds of need, even though those            arguments then become that much stronger.'         It was argued by ISKCON that the Inspector's conclusion was founded at least in part on misapprehensions.   For example, he was wrong to suggest, without any evidential basis, that if a new temple were to be built there would be increased activity at the Manor due to fund raising, or that the appellants might be unable to complete a new temple project within the time scale allowed.   The Court rejected ISKCON's submissions on the grounds that the matters on which the Inspector really relied were matters of substance, which permeated his report.   This approach was indicated in paragraph 37.22 of the Report (see above).         The Secretary of State was entitled to regard the Inspector's conclusions as firmly founded, and there was no substance in any of the points which had been argued in support of the appeal.         ISKCON applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.   On 16 March 1992 Lord Justice Glidewell agreed largely with the decision of Mr Justice Kennedy of 31 October 1991. Leave to appeal was refused.         With the refusal of leave to appeal, the two year period for compliance with the enforcement notice began to run.         Relevant domestic law         Section 174 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides for the following grounds for appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice:         "(a) that planning permission ought to be granted for the       development to which the notice relates or, as the case may be,       that a condition or limitation alleged in the enforcement notice       not to have been complied with ought to be discharged:         (b) that the matters alleged in the notice do not constitute a       breach of planning control;         (c) that the breach of planning control alleged in the notice has       not taken place;       ...         (g) that the steps required by the notice to be taken exceed what       is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control or to       achieve a purpose specified in Section 173 (4);         (h) that the period specified in the notice as the period within       which any step is to be taken falls short of what should       reasonably be allowed."         An appeal against the Secretary of State may be made to the High Court "on a point of law" (Section 289 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).   COMPLAINTS         The complaints made by ISKCON.         ISKCON allege a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.   ISKCON accept that the enforcement notice appears to satisfy the requirements of lawfulness and legitimate purpose in Article 9 para. 2, but consider that the interference was not "necessary in a democratic society".   In particular, they consider that the enforcement notice, subsequent proceedings and the attitude shown by the authorities were unnecessarily harsh and failed to give sufficient weight to the importance of the Manor as a place of worship and inspiration for Hindus.   In this respect they also point to a letter of 17 September 1992 from a minister at the Department of the Environment that "[r]eligious aspects of the Society's activities at Bhaktivedanta Manor were not relevant" to the enforcement and planning appeals, and to further letters to the same effect of 26 August and 22 December 1993 from an official and a minister at the Department of the Environment respectively.         They consider that, in an increasingly ethnically diverse Europe, the Commission should not hesitate, in an appropriate case, to adopt a narrow margin of appreciation under Article 9.   ISKCON regard the Section 52 Agreement of 25 January 1983 as evidence of what the council then accepted as reasonable, and that without giving good reasons for changing their mind, the council's subsequent enforcement notice and proceedings were disproportionate.         ISKCON also allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. ISKCON consider that because of the link with religious freedom, a narrower approach should be made to Article 1 of the First Protocol than is normally the case, and they argue that Muslims, Catholics and Protestants have been given permission to use premises for public worship within Green Belt areas where they have not been so permitted.         ISKCON also allege a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that they were entitled to access to a court with the full guarantees of Article 6 in respect neither of their property rights, nor in respect of their right to freedom of religion.   They point out that the proceedings before the Planning Inspector were non- judicial, recommendatory in character and subject to alteration or confirmation at the Secretary of State's discretion, and that the scope of review of the appeal to the High Court (and subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal) was not sufficient to comply with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.         ISKCON also allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention to the extent that Article 6 para. 1 may be found not to be applicable.         The complaints made by the 8 individual applicants         The individual applicants have each submitted a statement to the Commission indicating how seriously he or she will