CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 janvier 1995

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 20348/92                                June Buckley                                   against                             the United Kingdom                           REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 11 January 1995)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.   The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.   The proceedings           (paras. 5-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.   The present Report           (paras. 16-20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 21-57). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         A.   Particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 21-45). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         B.   Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 46-57). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 58-86). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         A.   Complaint declared admissible           (para. 58). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         B.   Point at issue           (para. 59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         C.   Article 8 of the Convention           (paras. 60-85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         CONCLUSION       (para. 86). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14   CONCURRING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15   DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. E. BUSUTTIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17   DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. B. CONFORTI, JOINED BY MM. A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK, A. WEITZEL ET I. BÉKÉS.... . . . . . . . . .18   APPENDIX I        HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . .19     APPENDIX II       DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY. .   . . . . . . . . . . 20   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant is June Buckley, a British citizen born in 1964 and resident in Willingham, Cambridgeshire. She is represented by Mr. Luke Clements, a solicitor practising in Hereford.   3.     The application is directed against the United Kingdom.   The respondent Government are represented by Mr. Iain Christie, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as Agent.   4.     The case concerns the complaints of the applicant that she is prevented from living with her family in caravans on her own land and from following the traditional lifestyle of a gypsy. It raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 7 February 1992 and registered on 22 July 1992.   6.     On 8 January 1993, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.     The Government submitted their written observations on 8 April 1993.   The applicant submitted her written observations in reply on 1 June 1993.   8.     On 1 December 1993, the Commission (First Chamber) decided to hold an oral hearing.   9.     On 14 February 1994, the parties submitted written observations.   10.    At the hearing which was held on 3 March 1994, the Government were represented by   Mr. Iain Christie, as Agent, Mr. David Pannick Q.C., Counsel and Ms. Virginia Harrison, Miss Pauline Prosser and Ms. Jan Bird as Advisers from the Department of the Environment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Timothy Jones, Counsel, Ms. Perdita Cargill-Thompson, counsel and Mr. Luke Clements, Solicitor.   11.    On 3 March 1994, the Commission declared the application admissible.   12.    The parties were then invited to submit additional observations on the merits of the application.   13.    On 27 May 1994, the Government submitted further observations.   14.    On 21 June 1994, 3 and 26 October 1994 and 18 November 1994, the applicant made further submissions.   On 23 December 1994 the Government submitted further observations.   15.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Consultations with the parties' took place between 16 March 1994 and 9 September 1994. In the light of the parties' reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   16.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV   17.    The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 11 January 1995 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   18.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is         1)   to establish the facts, and         2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   19.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   20.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     Particular circumstances of the case   21.    The applicant is a gypsy by birth. Her family has for many generations been based in the area of South Cambridgeshire near Willingham. As a child, her family travelled in that area. During the spring and summer months, they parked their caravans on farms where they engaged in casual farm work. At other times, they camped wherever they could, on a waste land, the roadside or on the land of sympathetic farmers. After the applicant's marriage she continued her travelling life. Until 1988 therefore, the applicant had no fixed abode but travelled in caravans throughout the Willingham area.   22.    In 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Buckley (who is the applicant's sister) acquired a one acre site in the Willingham area from a Mr. and Mrs. S., who had applied for, and been refused, retrospective planning permission for a single caravan.   In May 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Buckley applied retrospectively for planning permission to have one residential caravan on the frontage of their one acre site.   Permission was given on a personal temporary basis.   In November 1988, a further retrospective application was made for three caravans.   These were occupied by the applicant and her three children.   Permission was given in January 1989 on a personal temporary basis.   23.    The applicant moved on to the site occupied by her sister at the end of 1988 before the birth of her third child. Her two eldest children had been born to the travelling life. The applicant had found it hard, being forced to move on continually. She found once they had settled on her sister's land that the two children integrated into the local school.   24.    On an unspecified date in 1988, the applicant acquired part of the land belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Buckley.   In October 1989 on the part of the land acquired by the applicant, there were three caravans occupied by the applicant, her children and her mother. A retrospective planning application in respect of the three caravans was submitted on 4 December 1989.   The application for planning permission was refused by the District Council on 8 March 1990 on the basis that adequate provision had been made for gypsy caravans elsewhere, that the planned use of the land would detract from the rural and open quality of the landscape and that the access to the site was too narrow to allow two vehicles to pass.   25.    An enforcement notice was issued by the District Council for the caravans to be removed to take effect on 15 May 1990.   26.    The applicant appealed against the enforcement notice to the Secretary of State for the Environment.   27.    In a decision dated 16 April 1991 based on an inspector's report, the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal, finding that the objections to the continued use of the site for caravans were so strong on planning and highway safety grounds that the grant of permission could not be justified. He found also that the concentration of gypsy sites in the area had reached the desirable maximum and the need for additional sites for gypsies should not outweigh the planning and highway objections. The inspector also referred to the fact that the applicant had planning permission to station a caravan on an adjoining approved site.   28.    The applicant did not appeal to the High Court since this appeal lies only on points of law and she was advised that no grounds arose in her case.   29.    The applicant was served with a summons for failure to comply with the enforcement notice on 9 September 1991. At the hearing in the Magistrates' Court on 7 January 1992, the applicant pleaded guilty on the advice of her solicitor and was fined £50 with £10 costs.   30.    On or about 27 November 1992, an official site situated in Meadow Drove was opened which contained 15 pitches for gypsies. A number of the pitches were filled by gypsies from unofficial roadside sites elsewhere in the district. By letter dated 17 February 1992, the applicant had been informed by the Council of the possible availability of pitches on this site and it had been suggested to her that she contact the County Council in this regard. The applicant did not make an application. In the time which has elapsed since the site opened, seven vacancies have arisen.   31.    There are other official sites in South Cambridgeshire; a full facility site at Whaddon in respect of which only one vacancy has arisen since July 1992. There are two short stay or transit sites at Blackwell and Meldreth respectively.   32.    Between 1984 and 1993, the District Council granted planning permission for 170 private gypsy caravans.   33.    By letter dated 20 May 1993, the Department of the Environment informed the District Council that the Secretary of State had decided to designate the area of South Cambridgeshire under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Designation was granted on the basis of the Council's assurance that they would apply their powers humanely and give sympathetic consideration to applications for gypsy sites. It was noted that a small number of gypsies still remained on unauthorised sites but that, in light of the provision made for sites which was greater than in any other district, it was considered "not expedient for adequate accommodation to be provided for gypsies residing in or resorting to South Cambridgeshire District".   34.    The Order designating the district of South Cambridgeshire came into force on 13 August 1993.   35.    In or about the summer of 1993, the applicant travelled in a caravan with her sister who was in a separate caravan to St. Neots to help their mother-in-law, recently bereaved by the loss of her husband. The applicant stationed her caravan on waste land adjacent to the site where her mother-in-law lived but after two weeks was forced to move on.   36.    The applicant was prosecuted for breach of an enforcement notice on 12 January 1994. The magistrates' court granted her an absolute discharge but ordered her to pay the prosecution expenses.   37.    The applicant's land at Meadow Drove, where she lives in two caravans with her three children, is now part of a group of six adjacent sites which are occupied by gypsies. One plot has received permanent planning permission for the residential use of three caravans. The site occupied by the applicant's sister enjoys permission for the use of two mobile homes and one touring caravan subject to the condition, inter alia, that this use cease on or before 4 August 1995. The parents of the applicant and her sister have moved onto the sister's site. The remaining three sites have been occupied without planning permission and the occupants have been subject to enforcement proceedings. The occupants of two of those sites have introduced applications before the Commission (Nos. 22902/93 and 23442/93).     38.    By letter dated 20 January 1994, the District Council contacted the applicant noting that she had never applied for a place on the official site at Meadow Drove and informing her that vacancies had arisen recently which were due to be filled by residents transferring from elsewhere but that a further pitch might become vacant in the next days and weeks and that she should reconsider her decision not to apply for a place. An application form was enclosed with the letter.   39.    As of 21 April 1994, there was a waiting list containing the names of two persons who had applied for vacancies on the official site at Meadow Drove. A vacancy which had arisen at or about that date was notified to the two persons on the list but they had, however, lost interest.   40.    The official Meadow Drove site is situated approximately 700 metres along the road to the east of the applicant's land. There is another unofficial encampment of approximately 12 gypsy caravans further east down the road beyond the official site.   41.    According to the gypsy liaison officer for the East Anglian Gypsy Council in a letter dated 7 February 1994, as of 4 February 1994 additional families had moved on to three of the pitches on the official site, "doubling up" because they had nowhere else to go. A letter dated 20 February 1994 from an official of the Romani Union also refers to problems on the site: "the Willingham site itself is overcrowded and is not in my opinion suitable for a single mother...I have heard reports that the site has recently been the subject of disorder."   42.    Between the opening of the official site in November 1992 and April 1994, the fire service attended twelve incidents in Meadow Drove. From 24 April 1994, they have responded to 14 emergency incidents in Meadow Road.   From the police records from October/November 1992 it would appear that a number of these incidents related to abandoned and/or stolen cars which had been set on fire.   43.    There is reference in the material before the Commission to two incidents involving the threat of the use of firearms at the official site. In the first, following an incident on 22 May 1993 in which G.P. breached an injunction which forbade him to approach the caravan in which his wife lived (he allegedly used a catapult to bombard the caravan) he was taken briefly into custody. A call was received by the police on 29 May 1993 warning that G.P.had a gun and was intending to go back down to the site to shoot his wife and son. On investigation, it appeared that the call was a hoax either by G.P. himself or his brother. In a later incident in December 1993, a resident on the site was punched in the eye by another. It was claimed by one that the other had a gun but on investigation the police again found no evidence that a gun had been on the site.   44.    The records refer also to joyriding, an apparent overdose of drugs by some-one on the official site and numerous incidents of vandalism and theft and stripping of motor vehicles, some of which were then set on fire. The latter incidents took place in or about the Meadow Drove area, on or near the road or on nearby farm land. The front page of one of the local newspapers, the Cambridge Evening News, of 20 November 1992, refers to a raid by 200 policemen on gypsy sites in south Cambridgeshire, including two sites at Willingham, during which it is reported that 25 men were arrested (14 from Willingham) and suspected stolen property recovered.   45.    By decision dated 14 November 1994, the District Council rejected the applicant's application of 19 September 1994 for planning permission in respect of stationing her caravans on her land. It was stated that the site was located in open countryside and repeated the Inspector's finding in June 1992 that gypsy provision in Willingham had reached the desirable maximum of 35 caravans. It also stated that adequate provision for gypsies had been made along Meadow Road and that granting permission to sites beyond the two private sites already permitted at that location would consolidate the visually intrusive character of the land use and detract from the rural and open quality of the area.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice         Provision for gypsy sites   46.    Section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (the 1968 Act) defines "gipsies" as:         "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin,       but does not include members of an organised group of travelling       showmen, or of persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling       together as such."   47.    Section 6 of the 1968 Act provides that it shall be the duty of local authorities:         "... to exercise their powers...so far as may be necessary to       provide adequate accommodation for gipsies residing in or       resorting to their area."   48.    Pursuant to section 9 of the 1968 Act, the Secretary of State may direct local authorities to provide sites:         "The Secretary of State may, if at any time it appears to him to       be necessary so to do, give directions to any local authority to       which subsection 1 of section 6 of this Act applies requiring       them to provide pursuant to that section, such sites or       additional sites, for the accommodation of such numbers of       caravans, as may be specified in the directions; and any such       directions shall be enforceable, on the application of the       Secretary of State, by mandamus."   49.    The Secretary of State has given directions to a local authority under section 9 on five occasions. No application has ever been made to the courts to enforce any such directions.         The designation system   50.    Pursuant to section 12 of the 1968 Act, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the duty imposed by section 6 has been carried out, he may designate the area of that local authority as one to which section 10 applies. An order may not be made by the Secretary of State unless it appears to him that either adequate provision has been made in the area for the accommodation of gypsies residing in or resorting to the area or   that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make any such provision (section 12 (3)).   51.    Section 10 of the 1968 Act provides :         "Prohibition of unauthorised camping in designated areas         (1) In any area designated under the following provisions of this       Act as an area to which this section applies it shall be an       offence for any person being a gipsy to station a caravan for the       purpose of residing for any period -              (a)    on any land situated within the boundaries of a                  highway; or            (b)    on any other unoccupied land; or            (c)    on any occupied land without the consent of the                  occupier.         (2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this       section it shall be a defence to prove that the caravan was       stationed on the land in consequence of illness, mechanical       breakdown or other immediate emergency and that he removed it (or       intended to remove it) as soon as reasonably practicable.         (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be       liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on       the standard scale]; and if the offence of which he is convicted       is continued after the conviction he shall be guilty of a further       offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not       exceeding £5 for every day on which the offence is so continued."   52.    Section 11 of the Act provides:         "Orders for removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their       occupants         (1) In any area to which section 10 of this Act applies, a       magistrates' court may, on a complaint made by a local authority,       and if satisfied that a caravan is stationed on land within the       authority's area in contravention of that section, make an order       requiring any caravan (whether or not identified in the order)       which is so stationed on the land to be removed together with any       person residing in it.         (2) An order under this section may authorise the local authority       to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that the       order is complied with and in particular, may authorise the       authority, by its officers and servants -              (a)    to enter upon the land specified in the order; and            (b)    to take, in relation to any caravan to be removed                  pursuant to the order, such steps for securing entry                  and rendering it suitable for removal as may be so                  specified ..."   53.    Five of the six authorities in Cambridgeshire have been designated pursuant to section 12. Four authorities, including the district in question in the present case, were designated by the Secretary of State on grounds of "expediency" while the fifth was designated on the ground that adequate provision had been made for gypsy accommodation in the area.   54.    In England and Wales as a whole, 157 from a total of 401 district or borough councils have been designated.   55.    The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which received the royal assent on 3 November 1994, contains provisions which, inter alia, abolish the duty on local authorities to provide gypsy sites and repeal sections 10-12 of the 1968 Act above.         Gypsy sites and planning   56.    In a circular 1/94 from the Department of the Environment dated 5 January 1994, revised guidance was given to local authorities in respect of the planning aspects of sites for caravans which provide accommodation for gypsies. Its main intentions included "to provide that the planning system recognises the need for accommodation consistent with the gypsies' nomadic lifestyle". It indicated that in the preparation of development plans local planning authorities should consult   with gypsies and relevant gypsy organisations to discuss their accommodation needs. Relevant plans should identify locations suitable for gypsy sites or set out clear, realistic criteria for suitable sites as a basis for site provision policies.   57.    As regards applications by gypsies, the circular stated inter alia:         "In order to encourage private site provision, local       planning authorities should offer advice and practical help       with planning procedures to gypsies who wish to acquire       their own land for development. Wherever possible gypsies       should be encouraged to consult authorities on planning       matters before buying land on which they intend to camp and       for which planning permission would be required. Pre-       application discussions are particularly important to avoid       misunderstanding. The aim should be as far as possible to       help gypsies to help themselves, to allow them to secure       the kind of sites they require and thus help avoid breaches       of planning control."   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaint declared admissible   58.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that she and her family are being prevented from living in caravans on her own land and from following the traditional lifestyle of a gypsy.   B.     Point at issue   59.    The issue to be determined is whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of her complaint.     C.     Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention   60.    Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and       family life, his home and his correspondence.         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with       the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with       the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests       of national security, public safety or the economic well-being       of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the       protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the       rights and freedoms of others."   a.     Applicability of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention   61.    The applicant complains that she is prohibited from living in her caravans on her own land, where her children can grow up in a stable environment and receive a continuous education and that she is also prevented from pursuing the traditional lifestyle of   a gypsy.   62.    The Government point out that the applicant took up residence on her land in contravention of the applicable planning controls and, referring to the Commission's case-law, submit that Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) does not contain an express right to living accommodation (cf. Application No. 14455/88, Dec. 4.9.91, unpublished). Since the applicant is claiming in essence a right to establish a home, it is submitted that she is relying on a right not guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8).   63.    The Commission recalls that the applicant did not have permission to station her caravans on the land which she purchased in or about the end of 1988. Her occupation has therefore never been lawful. The Commission considers however that the concept of "home" within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) is not limited to those which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully established. "Home" is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links (see eg. No. 7456/76, 8.2.78, D.R. 13 p. 40 and Eur. Court H.R. Gillow judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109). The factor of "lawfulness" is relevant rather to considerations under paragraph 2 of that provision of "in accordance with law" and to the balancing exercise undertaken between the interests of the community and those of the individual in assessing the necessity of any interference.   64.    In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant has lived on her land in her caravans since the end of 1988. She applied for planning permission, albeit retrospectively and unsuccessfully, and had been resident on her land for over three years before introducing this complaint before the Commission. The Commission has had regard particularly to the fact that the applicant is a gypsy who has always lived in a caravan in or about the Willingham area. It accepts, as submitted by the applicant, that living in a caravan home is an integral and deeply-felt part of her gypsy life-style. The Commission's case-law indicates that the traditional lifestyle of a minority may attract the guarantees of Article 8 (Art. 8) as concerning their "private life", "family life" and "home" (eg. Nos. 9278/81 and 9415/81, Dec. 3.10.83, D.R. 35 p.30).   65.    The Commission accordingly finds in the circumstances of this case that the applicant's complaint that she is prevented from living with her family in her caravans on her land falls within the scope of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as relating to her right to respect for her family life, private life and home.   b.     Was there an interference under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of       the Convention?   66.    The applicant contends that she has nowhere she can legally or safely go if she is prevented from living on her own land. She submits that there is an acknowledged shortfall of sites for gypsies in South Cambridgeshire and that local authorities are failing to fulfil their statutory duty to provide sites. The applicant asserts that in light of the shortfall of sites for gypsies in the area it is unrealistic to require her to apply for vacancies on the nearby   official site as this will merely transfer the problem to another family. Even if there were vacant pitches on the official site, she would submit in addition that it has been and continues to be subject to violence and disturbance which renders it an unsafe location for a single woman living alone with her children. Further, the designation system which discriminates against gypsies prevents her moving onto unoccupied land or stationing her caravans near the highway. Though she wishes to remain on her land in order to provide a stable home and attendance for her children at the local school, she would wish to travel when possible.   67.    The Government contend that the applicant cannot be considered a victim of any interference with her rights under Article 8 paragraph 1 (Art. 8-1) since as a matter of fact she was and is able to apply for a place on one of the many other local authority and private gypsy caravan sites throughout Cambridgeshire. They point in particular to the official site in Meadow Drove close to the applicant's present location and state that vacancies arise periodically for which she could have applied since the site opened and for which she could still apply. The Government submit also that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of the designation system since she has not in fact been subject to any of the criminal sanctions which may apply under the designation powers.   68.    The Commission has considered whether the applicant can claim to be a victim of any interference with her right to private life, family life or home. While the applicant has complained of the designation system which applies criminal powers of enforcement to gypsies alone in respect of stationing of caravans on public land or without consent on privately owned land, the Commission notes that it is not its task to review legislation in abstracto. It may only examine the applicant's complaints insofar as she has been directly and immediately affected by the measures in question. In this context, it appears that the applicant has not been prosecuted or been subject to any order for removal under the designation provisions (see eg. No. 18401/91, Dec. 6.5.93, to be published in D.R.).     69.    The Commission recalls however that the applicant has been subject to enforcement measures and has been prosecuted in respect of her failure to cease occupying her land in her caravans. This is sufficient to constitute an interference under the terms of the first paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8-1). Whether there are viable alternatives open to the applicant if she leaves her land is relevant to the consideration of the necessity of such interference (see below paras. **).   c.     Compliance with Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention   70.    According to the constant case-law of the Convention organs, an interference under the first paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8) entails a violation unless it is "in accordance with the law", has an aim that is legitimate under Article 8 paragraph 2 (Art. 8-2) and is "necessary in a democratic society" for the aforesaid aim (see, inter alia, Eur. Court H.R., W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121, p.27 para. 60 (a)).         i.    "in accordance with the law"   71.    The applicant has not contested the lawfulness of the measures to which she has been subjected. The Commission finds that the interference was "in accordance with the law".         ii.   legitimate aim   72.    The Government have submitted that the measures taken against the applicant pursue the enforcement of planning controls which are in the interests of the economic well-being of the country, public safety (in regard to the highway safety aspects), the preservation of the environment and public health (recreational facilities and amenity for the general public). The applicant has not seriously disputed these aims. The Commission accordingly finds that the measures in this case pursue, inter alia, the legitimate aims of the economic well-being of the country and the protection of the health and rights of others as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         iii. "necessary in a democratic society"   73.    The case-law of the Commission and Court establish that the notion of "necessity" implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and that it is proportionate to the aim or aims pursued. In assessing the proportionality, regard must be had to whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. Further, in determining whether an interference is justified the Commission and Court will take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States, which are in principle in a better position to make an initial assessment of the necessity of a given interference (see eg. Eur. Court H.R. Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 32, para. 68).   74.    The applicant contends that the interference is not necessary. It is not, she submits, justified by a pressing social need. She refers to the lack of viable alternatives if she leaves. She is unable to afford the expense of buying into a private mobile home site and she alleges that the official site nearby is not practicable due to the overcrowding and disorder to which it is subject. Due to the designation system in force in South Cambridgeshire and other adjacent districts, she has nowhere else where she can lawfully go. She points out that the local authority is acknowledged as not having provided sufficient number of sites for gypsies and in these circumstances, it is disproportionate for enforcement steps to be taken against her for occupation of her own land.   75.    The Government consider that the applicant could have applied for a place on the official site nearby which would allow her children to continue to attend the local school. They dispute that the site has been marked significantly by incidents of violence or disorder or by overcrowding. They submit that the local authority has taken reasonable steps to fulfil its duty to provide adequate accommodation in the face of an increase in the gypsy population resorting to the area. They emphasise that the applicant occupied her land without the requisite planning permission and that she cannot rely on her membership of a minority to gain immunity from planning controls which apply to everyone else.   76.    The Commission has in previous cases frequently found that enforcement measures in respect of planning controls can be regarded as necessary under the terms of the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8-2) in the interests of the protection of the environment and public amenity, particularly where the applicant concerned had taken up residence on the land in question without permission (see eg. 11185/84, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R.42 p. 275). As in those cases, the Commission must weigh the general interests of the community in effective planning controls against the applicant's right to respect for her private life, family life and home, rights which are an intrinsic part of her personal security and well-being. In this assessment, the Commission must have regard to whether an excessive burden is placed on the applicant. Relevant to this exercise is consideration of whether there are practical alternatives open to the applicant if she leaves her land. This is not, the Commission would remark, a factor which plays a role in the general type of planning case, where the assumption is that an individual has a wide range of accommodation possibilities available to him or her throughout the country. This case presents the special feature that, being a gypsy, the applicant leads a traditional lifestyle which restricts the options open to her.   77.    The Commission notes that local authorities are placed under a duty by section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide adequate provision for the gypsies living or resorting to their area. The district of South Cambridgeshire in the present case was however designated by the Secretary of State under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Designation was granted even though it was noted that a small number of gypsies still remained on unauthorised sites, since, in light of the provision made for sites which was greater than in any other district, it was considered "not expedient for adequate accommodation to be provided for gypsies residing in or resorting to South Cambridgeshire District". The Government have referred to the increase in number of gypsies resorting to the area and the resulting burden that it has placed on the District Council. However, it would appear, as pointed out by the applicant, that even if the Government's figures of an increase between 1984 to 1992 from 66 to 206 caravans (approximately 196 people) are correct (which she disputes), that has to be seen in the context of an even steeper increase in the settled population of the area which has generated a significant amount of new housing in Willingham itself.   78.    While an official site was opened in November 1992, offering 15 pitches, this site was filled immediately and has since then had only occasional vacancies. The Commission notes that there is an unofficial roadside site further down Meadow Drove of an estimated 12 caravans and that there are three other families occupying land adjacent to the applicant without planning permission. It is therefore apparent that there is insufficient room on official sites for the number of gypsies in South Cambridgeshire.   79.    The Commission does not consider that the possibility of moving on to a private site is reasonably open to the applicant. This type of privately owned site does not cater for gypsies and occupants are required to purchase a mobile home on the site.   80.    While reference was made by the planning inspector (para. 22) to the possibility of the applicant moving to her sister's site where there was planning permission, the parents of the applicant and her sister have now moved on to the sister's site. The Government accept that it is no longer practicable to expect the applicant to move her caravans there.   81.    The Commission notes in addition that the designation of the district and those nearby renders it a criminal offence for the applicant to station her caravans, inter alia, on waste ground or the side of the road anywhere in the vicinity.   82.    The Commission has given careful consideration to the possibility that the applicant could apply, as stated by the Government, for a place on the nearby official site which has had and continues to have vacancies from time to time.   While according to the Government there have been few official complaints made to the District Council by the residents of the site or the local population, the Commission finds that the records of the police and fire services indicate a not insignificant level of disorder, crime and, on occasion, violence connected with, or in the vicinity of, the official site. It recalls in this context that the applicant is a single mother living with her three children. Given that there are insufficient places for gypsies on official sites, it is unreasonable, in the Commission's view, to expect the applicant, amongst those currently residing without authorisation on their own or other land, to apply for a place on a site which offers distinct disadvantages compared to her present location on her own land, close to other members of her family.   83.    The Commission finds that the measures taken against the applicant with regard to her continued occupation of her land place her in the position where she is being required either to move off without any specific lawful place where she can go or to apply for a future vacancy on a site which she considers, with reason, to be unsuitable. Both these alternatives offer the prospect of insecurity and the threat of disrupting the stability of her own and her children's existence. Against this, the Commission considers that the factors weighing in favour of the public interest in planning controls are of a slight and general nature. The highway safety aspect does not appear strong in view of the location of an official and unofficial gypsy site along the same road and the fact that two of the gypsy families at the applicant's location have permission to be there. The general amenity of the immediate area would not appear to require special measures of protection in view of the number of authorised gypsy sites already in place ie. it is not an area of untouched countryside or of particular scenic beauty which might weight the balance more heavily towards preservation.   84.    In these circumstances, the burden placed upon the applicant by the enforcement measures is, in the Commission's opinion, excessive and disproportionate. Even having regard to the margin of appreciation accorded to the dome