CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 septembre 1996

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s901885A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#252525 } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s661FC08A { width:3.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s34F36F31 { width:3.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1F7F12F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s589F1A46 { width:25.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC9A433EA { width:49.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAC9CE5D8 { width:39.7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD6B99D9F { width:130.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s865C8E29 { width:211.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85901FCD { width:24.43pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEE4AB91D { width:237.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s37D1F236 { width:204.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6C62D90 { width:120.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBE4C8E46 { width:185.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sF8A144D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       COURT (CHAMBER)             CASE OF BUCKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Application no. 20348/92 )             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   29 September 1996 In the case of Buckley v. the United Kingdom [1] ,   The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A [2] , as a Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr   R. Bernhardt , President , Mr   Thór Vilhjálmsson , Mr   L.-E. Pettiti , Mr   A.N. Loizou ,    Mr   J.M. Morenilla , Sir   John Freeland , Mr   B. Repik , Mr   K. Jungwiert , Mr   U. Lohmus ,   and also of Mr H. Petzold , Registrar , and Mr P.J. Mahoney , Deputy Registrar ,   Having deliberated in private on 23 February and 26 August 1996,   Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE   1.    The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") and by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the Government") on 1 and 7 March 1995 respectively, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47).   It originated in an application (no. 20348/92) against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 7 February 1992 by a British national, Mrs June Buckley.   The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government's application referred to Article 48 (art. 48).   The object of the request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).   2.    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent her (Rule 30). 3.    The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)).   On 5 May 1995, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal, drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr A.N. Loizou, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr B. Repik, Mr K. Jungwiert and Mr U. Lohmus (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).   4.    As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the British Government, the applicant's lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).   Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government's and the applicant's memorials on 2 November 1995. Supplementary memorials were received from the Government and the applicant on 21 December 1995 and 5 February 1996 respectively.   5.    On 25 January 1996 the President of the Chamber decided to admit to the case file certain documents received at the registry on 8 January from Mr A.J. Buck, Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator, of Willingham, Cambridgeshire (Rule 37 para. 2).   6.    In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 February 1996.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.   There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government     Mr I. Christie , Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign and         Commonwealth Office,   Agent ,     Mr D. Pannick QC,     Mr M. Shaw ,   Counsel ,     Mr D. Russell , Department of the Environment,     Ms P. Prosser , Department of the Environment,     Mr R. Horsman , Department of the Environment,     Mrs K. Crandall , South Cambridgeshire District Council,           Advisers ; (b) for the Commission     Mr N. Bratza ,   Delegate ; (c) for the applicant        Mr P. Duffy , Barrister-at-Law,     Mr T. Jones , Barrister-at-Law,   Counsel ,     Mr L. Clements ,      Solicitor . The Court heard addresses by Mr Bratza, Mr Duffy and Mr Pannick.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.    PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. The background   7.    The applicant is a British citizen and a Gypsy.   She lives with her three children in caravans parked on land owned by her off Meadow Drove, Willingham, South Cambridgeshire, England.   She is married but separated from her husband in 1991.   8.    As far back as can be traced, the applicant's family have been Gypsies based in South Cambridgeshire.   She has lived in caravans all her life and as a child travelled with her parents in this area.   She continued this itinerant life until shortly before the birth of her third child in 1988.   9.    In 1988 the applicant's sister and brother-in-law acquired a one-acre (approximately 4000 square metres) site off Meadow Drove, Willingham, and were granted personal, temporary planning permission for one living unit, comprising two caravans.   10.    At her sister's invitation she moved on to this site in November 1988 when she was expecting her third child, because she had found it hard being constantly on the move with young children.   During this period of settled living the two eldest children were able to attend a local school, where they integrated well.   11.    On an unspecified date in 1988, the applicant acquired part of her sister's land (0.16 hectare) to the rear of the site, furthest away from Meadow Drove.   She moved her three caravans on to this plot.   12.    Her land 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 enjoyed temporary permission until 4 August 1995.   The remaining three sites have been occupied without planning permission and the occupants have been subject to enforcement proceedings (see paragraph 32 below).   The occupants of two of those sites have also introduced applications before the European Commission of Human Rights.   13.    The applicant has stated that she intends to resume her travelling life sometime in the future, and to pass on this tradition to her children.   In 1993 she travelled with her sister to Saint Neots in Cambridgeshire because her father-in-law was dying.   She was able to park on waste ground for two weeks, but had to move on shortly after the funeral.    B. The application for planning permission   14.    On 4 December 1989 the applicant applied retrospectively to South Cambridgeshire District Council for planning permission for the three caravans on her site.   She was refused on 8 March 1990 on the grounds that (1) adequate provision had been made for Gypsy caravans elsewhere in the South Cambridgeshire area, which had in the Council's opinion reached "saturation point" for Gypsy accommodation; (2) the planned use of the land would detract from the rural and open quality of the landscape, contrary to the aim of the local development plan which was to protect the countryside from all but essential development (see paragraph 30 below); and (3) Meadow Drove was an agricultural drove road which was too narrow to allow two vehicles to pass in safety.   15.    On 9 April 1990 the Council issued an enforcement notice requiring the caravans to be removed within a month.   The applicant appealed against the enforcement notice to the Secretary of State for the Environment (see paragraph 33 below).   16.    An inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State to report on the appeal (see paragraph 33 below).   The inspector visited the site and considered written representations submitted by the applicant and the District Council.   In her report issued on 14 February 1991 the inspector observed that the local authority had granted planning permission to two caravan sites between the applicant's site and Meadow Drove (the applicant's sister's site and another), and to an agricultural workshop on land to the east of the site (which was occupied at the time of the inspection by an unauthorised road haulage business).   The applicant's caravans were screened from the road because of these authorised and unauthorised developments.   However, the inspector wrote that:   "... whether seen or not, the development subject of these notices [i.e. the applicant's caravan site] extends development further from the road than that permitted.   It thus intrudes into the open countryside, contrary to the aim of the Structure Plan [see paragraph 30 below] to protect the countryside from all but essential development."   The inspector also found that the access road to the site was too narrow for two vehicles to pass, and thus that the use of the site for caravans would not be in the interests of road safety.   She considered the applicant's special status as a Gypsy and observed that in January 1990 there were over sixty Gypsy families on unauthorised sites in the district of South Cambridgeshire.   She continued:   "It is therefore clear in my mind that a need exists for more authorised spaces. ... Nevertheless, I consider it important to keep concentrations of sites for gypsies small, because in this way they are more readily accepted by the local community. ... [T]he concentration of gypsy sites in Willingham has reached the desirable maximum and I do not consider that the overall need for sites should, in this case, outweigh the planning objections."   She concluded by recommending that the appeal be dismissed.   17.    The Secretary of State dismissed the appeal on 16 April 1991. The reasons given included the following:   "The decisive issue in regard to the planning merits of your appeals is considered to be whether the undisputed need for additional gypsies' caravan site provision, in the administrative areas of the District Council, and of the County Council, is so pressing that it should be permitted to override the objections on planning policy and highway safety grounds to the retention of the use of the appeal site as a residential caravan site for gypsies.   On this approach, the view is taken that the objections to the continued use of the appeal site as a residential gypsy caravan site are so strong, on planning policy and highway safety grounds, that a grant of planning permission could not be justified, either on a temporary or personal basis.   In reaching this conclusion, full consideration has been given to policy advice in the Department's Circular 28/77, giving guidance to Councils on the need to provide adequate accommodation in the form of caravan sites, for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area.   However, on the available evidence, the view is taken, in agreement with the officer's appraisal, that the concentration of gypsy caravan sites around the Willingham area has reached the desirable maximum, and the overall need for additional sites should not outweigh the planning and highway objections arising from the continued use of this particular site."   The applicant did not appeal to the High Court because she was advised by counsel that no grounds arose in her case (see paragraph 34 below).    C. Criminal proceedings against the applicant   18.    The applicant has been prosecuted for failure to comply with the enforcement notice of May 1990.   On 7 January 1992 she was fined £50 and required to pay £10 costs.   She has again been prosecuted on two occasions after the introduction of her application to the Commission on 7 February 1992.   On 12 January 1994 the magistrates granted her an absolute discharge but ordered her to pay the prosecution costs.   Finally, on 16 November 1994 she was fined £75 and ordered to pay £75 costs.    D. Designation   19.    By a 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 (see paragraph 37 below).   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".   The order designating the district of South Cambridgeshire came into force on 13 August 1993, but no longer applies because of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (see paragraph 41 below).    E. Subsequent developments   20.    On 19 September 1994 the applicant again applied for permission to station her caravans on her site, in the light of a change in the law (see paragraphs 40-42 below).   21.    She was refused on 14 November 1994 on the grounds that (1) local planning policy dictated that development in open countryside should be restricted and no evidence to justify a departure from this policy had been advanced, and (2) adequate provision for Gypsies had been made along Meadow Drove (see paragraph 24 below).   22.    The applicant (together with others occupying the neighbouring sites) appealed against this decision to the Secretary of State.   A report was prepared by an inspector in May 1995.   The inspector considered, first, whether the continued use of the land as a Gypsy caravan site would detract from the rural nature of the area, and, secondly, if so, whether there were any special circumstances sufficient to outweigh this objection.   She found that the road safety objection, which had been one of the grounds of refusal in April 1991 (see paragraph 16 above), no longer applied.   With regard to the first question, the inspector found that the applicant had a mobile home, three touring caravans and three sheds on her site.   These were hidden from the road by the caravans on the sites in front and by an agricultural engineering business, the same depth as the applicant's site to the east.   They were visible from other vantage points but could be adequately screened by planting hedges. However, she concluded that:   "... the continued use of the rear plots considerably extends the depth of development south of the road.   This intensification of use in itself inevitably detracts from the rural appearance and generally open character of the area, contrary to the objectives of national and local countryside policy.   I must therefore conclude that the continued occupation of the land as gypsy caravan sites is harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside."   With regard to the special circumstances of the case, in particular the applicant's Gypsy status, the inspector made the following observations.   She described the applicant's site as "clean, spacious and well-ordered".   By contrast, the council-run site on Meadow Drove (see paragraphs 24-26 below) was "isolated, exposed and somewhat uncared for".   Nevertheless, it was   "a relevant consideration that there is available alternative accommodation close by, which would enable the appellants to stay in the Willingham area and their children to continue at the local schools".   On the other hand,   "little weight [could] be given to the private sites at Cottenham.   No substantive evidence was given by either the Council or the appellants as to whether plots were actually available there or their price".   The inspector considered the impact of Circular 1/94 (see paragraph 43 below) on the applicant's case, but concluded that, although it placed greater emphasis on the provision of sites by Gypsies themselves, it was government policy that proposals for Gypsy sites should continue to be determined solely in relation to land-use factors.   She concluded that there had been no material changes since the last appeal was heard and the present appeal should therefore be dismissed.   23.    Accepting the inspector's conclusions and recommendations, the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal on 12 December 1995.   The applicant has filed an appeal to the High Court, which is now pending.    F. Authorised Gypsy sites in the district of South Cambridgeshire   24.    In November 1992 the County Council opened an official Gypsy caravan site in Meadow Drove, about 700 metres away from the applicant's land.   The site consists of fifteen pitches, each comprising a fenced, partially grassed area with hard standing for caravans and its own brick building containing a kitchen, shower and toilet.   Each pitch is designed to accommodate one permanent caravan, one touring caravan, one lorry and one car.   They are joined by a central road and the site stands in open countryside.   25.    Between November 1992 (when the site opened) and August 1995, twenty-eight vacancies have arisen there.   The District Council contacted the applicant by letters dated 17 February 1992 and 20 January 1994, informing her of the possible availability of pitches on this site and advising her to apply for one to the County Council. The applicant has never taken any action in this regard.   26.    Since the site opened, the following incidents have reportedly taken place there: (1) an unsubstantiated allegation in May 1993 that one of the residents was in possession of a firearm; (2) a fight in December 1993 during which a resident on the site was punched in the eye by another; (3) in 1994 a car was brought on to the site and set alight; (4) in the same year there was an incident of domestic violence; (5) also in 1994, the warden's office on the site was burgled and damaged when temporarily vacant; (6) in 1995 a site resident was convicted of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace after exchanging words and threatening gestures with a District Council refuse collector on the site; (7) in March 1995 four pitches were damaged by vandalism and/or fire.   27.    There are authorised privately run sites at Smithy Fen, Cottenham, about 7 kilometres from Willingham.   In May 1995 the cost of purchasing a pitch on one of them reportedly varied between £7,000 and £40,000.   II.    RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE    A. General planning law   28.    The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) ("the 1990 Act") consolidated pre-existing planning law.   29.    It provides that planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development of land (section 57 of the 1990 Act). A change in the use of land for the stationing of caravans can constitute a development (Restormel Borough Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Rabey [1982] Journal of Planning Law 785; John Davies v. Secretary of State for the Environment and South Hertfordshire District Council [1989] Journal of Planning Law 601).   30.    An application for planning permission must be made to the local planning authority, which has to determine the application in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 54A of the 1990 Act).   The local development plan in South Cambridgeshire restricts development in the countryside to that essential to the efficient operation of particular rural uses, such as horticulture, agriculture and forestry.   31.    The 1990 Act provides for an appeal to the Secretary of State in the event of a refusal of permission (section 78).   With immaterial exceptions, the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the authority so desire, give each of them the opportunity of making representations to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. It is established practice that each inspector must exercise independent judgment and must not be subject to any improper influence (see the Bryan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, p. 11, para. 21).   There is a further appeal to the High Court on the ground that the Secretary of State's decision was not within the powers conferred by the 1990 Act, or that the relevant requirements of the 1990 Act were not complied with (section 288).   32.    If a development is carried out without the grant of the required planning permission, the local authority may issue an "enforcement notice", if it considers it expedient to do so having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations (section 172 (1) of the 1990 Act).   33.    There is a right of appeal against an enforcement notice to the Secretary of State on the grounds, inter alia, that planning permission ought to be granted for the development in question (section 174).   As with the appeal against refusal of permission, the Secretary of State must give each of the parties the opportunity of making representations to an inspector.   34.    Again there is a further right of appeal "on a point of law" to the High Court against a decision of the Secretary of State under section 174 (section 289).   Such an appeal may be brought on grounds identical to an application for judicial review.   It therefore includes a review as to whether a decision or inference based on a finding of fact is perverse or irrational (R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] Appeal Cases 696, 764 H-765 D). The High Court will also grant a remedy if the inspector's decision was such that there was no evidence to support a particular finding of fact; or the decision was made by reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors; or made for an improper purpose, in a procedurally unfair manner or in a manner which breached any governing legislation or statutory instrument.   However, the court of review cannot substitute its own decision on the merits of the case for that of the decision-making authority.    B. Gypsy caravan sites provision   1. The Caravan Sites Act 1968   35.    Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ("the 1968 Act") was intended to combat the problems caused by the reduction in the number of lawful stopping places available to Gypsies as a result of planning and other legislation and social changes in the post-war years. Section 16 defined "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".   36.    Section 6 of the 1968 Act provided that it should 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".   The Secretary of State could direct local authorities to provide caravan sites where it appeared to him to be necessary (section 9).   37.    Where the Secretary of State was satisfied either that a local authority had made adequate provision for the accommodation of Gypsies, or that it was not necessary or expedient to make such provision, he could "designate" that district or county (section 12 of the 1968 Act).   The effect of designation was to make it an offence for any Gypsy to station a caravan within the designated area with the intention of living in it for any period of time on the highway, on any other unoccupied land or on any occupied land without the consent of the occupier (section 10).   In addition, section 11 of the 1968 Act gave to local authorities within designated areas power to apply to a magistrates' court for an order authorising them to remove caravans parked in contravention of section 10.   2. The Cripps Report   38.    By the mid-1970s it had become apparent that the rate of site provision under section 6 of the 1968 Act was inadequate, and that unauthorised encampments were leading to a number of social problems. In February 1976, therefore, the Government asked Sir John Cripps to carry out a study into the operation of the 1968 Act.   He reported in July 1976 (Accommodation for Gypsies: A report on the working of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, "the Cripps Report").   Sir John estimated that there were approximately 40,000 Gypsies living in England and Wales.   He found that:   "Six-and-a-half years after the coming into operation of Part II of the 1968 Act, provision exists for only one-quarter of the estimated total number of gypsy families with no sites of their own.   Three-quarters of them are still without the possibility of finding a legal abode ...   Only when they are travelling on the road can they remain within the law: when they stop for the night they have no alternative but to break the law."   The report made numerous recommendations for improving this situation.   3. Circular 28/77   39.    Circular 28/77 was issued by the Department of the Environment on 25 March 1977.   Its stated purpose was to provide local authorities with guidance on "statutory procedures, alternative forms of gypsy accommodation and practical points about site provision and management".   It was intended to apply until such time as more final action could be taken on the recommendations of the Cripps Report.   Among other advice, it encouraged local authorities to enable self-help by Gypsies through the adoption of a "sympathetic and flexible approach to [Gypsies'] applications for planning permission and site licences".   Making express reference to cases where Gypsies had bought a plot of land and stationed caravans on it only to find that planning permission was not forthcoming, it recommended that in such cases enforcement action not be taken until alternative sites were available in the area.   4. Circular 57/78   40.    Circular 57/78, which was issued on 15 August 1978, stated, inter alia, that "it would be to everyone's advantage if as many gypsies as possible were enabled to find their own accommodation", and thus advised local authorities that "the special need to accommodate gypsies ... should be taken into account as a material consideration in reaching planning decisions".   In addition, approximately £100 million was spent under a scheme by which one hundred per cent grants were made available to local authorities to cover the costs of creating Gypsy sites.   5. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994   41.    Section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act"), which came into force on 3 November 1994, repealed sections 6-12 of the 1968 Act (see paragraphs 35-37 above) and the grant scheme referred to in paragraph 40 above.   42.    Section 77 of the 1994 Act gives to a local authority power to direct an unauthorised camper to move.   An unauthorised camper is defined as   "a person for the time being residing in a vehicle on any land forming part of the highway, any other unoccupied land or any occupied land without the owner's consent".   Failure to comply with such a direction as soon as practicable, or re-entry upon the land within three months, is a criminal offence. Local authorities are able to apply to a magistrates' court for an order authorising them to remove caravans parked in contravention of such a direction (section 78 of the 1994 Act).   6. Circular 1/94   43.    New guidance on Gypsy sites and planning, in the light of the 1994 Act, was issued to local authorities by the Government in Circular 1/94 (5 January 1994), which cancelled Circular 57/78 (see paragraph 40 above).   Councils were told that:   "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. ... 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."   However:   "As with other planning applications, proposals for gypsy sites should continue to be determined solely in relation to land-use factors.   Whilst gypsy sites might be acceptable in some rural locations, the granting of permission must be consistent with agricultural, archaeological, countryside, environmental, and Green Belt policies ..."   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   44.    In her application (no. 20348/92) of 7 February 1992 to the Commission, Mrs Buckley alleged that she was prevented from living with her family in caravans on her own land and from following the traditional lifestyle of a Gypsy, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).   45.    On 3 March 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   In its report of 11 January 1995 (Article 31) (art. 31) the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) (seven votes to five).   The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the three separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment [3] . FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT   46.    In their memorial the Government requested the Court "to decide and declare that the facts [disclosed] no breach of the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8)".   The applicant requested the Court "to decide and declare that the facts [disclosed] a breach of [her] rights under Article 8 (art. 8) and/or Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8)" and to award her just satisfaction.   AS TO THE LAW   I.    SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT    A. Applicant's complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8)   47.    In her application to the Commission, the applicant claimed that the designation system under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (see paragraph 37 above) and the criminalisation of "unauthorised camping" under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (see paragraph 42 above) discriminated against Gypsies by preventing them from pursuing their traditional lifestyle. In its report the Commission did not express an opinion on this point. The Commission's Delegate, speaking at the Court's hearing, stated that the Commission had come to the conclusion that it could not examine the complaint as such because the applicant could not show that she had been directly and immediately affected by either of the Acts in question.   48.    Although the Commission considered the case only under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8), this additional complaint is encompassed in the Commission's decision declaring the application admissible.   The Court accordingly has jurisdiction to examine it (see the Philis v. Greece judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 19, para. 56).    B. Applicant's "formal objections"   49.    At the Court's hearing on 19 February 1996, the Government mentioned, in support of their contention that the applicant had had available to her sufficient procedural safeguards, that the applicant did not appeal to the High Court against the Secretary of State's decision of 16 April 1991 (see paragraph 17 above).   In a letter received at the registry on 21 February 1996, the applicant's solicitor sought to place on record "formal objections" against the Government's reliance on that fact.   The Government had based no preliminary objection on it at any time prior to the Court's hearing.   Accordingly, any such objection should be dismissed as out of time (Rule 48 para. 1 of Rules of Court A) and barred by estoppel.   50.    The Court observes that the applicant decided not to bring an appeal before the competent court after being advised by counsel that such an appeal was bound to fail (see paragraph 17 above).   However, as indicated above, the Government have not framed their comment as a preliminary objection.   It is an argument going to the merits, to be considered by the Court at the appropriate juncture (see paragraph 79 below).   II.    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 8)   51.    The applicant submitted that since she was prevented from living in caravans on her own land with her family and from following a travelling life there had been, and continued to be, a violation of her right to respect for her private and family life and her home.   She relied on Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8), which provides as follows:   "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." The Government contested this argument but the Commission accepted it. A. Whether a right protected by Article 8 (art. 8) is in issue   52.    The Government disputed that any of the applicant's rights under Article 8 (art. 8) was in issue.   In its contention, only a "home" legally established could attract the protection of that provision (art. 8).   53.    In the submission of the applicant and the Commission there was nothing in the wording of Article 8 (art. 8) or in the case-law of the Court or Commission to suggest that the concept of "home" was limited to residences which had been lawfully established.   They considered, in addition, that since the traditional Gypsy lifestyle involved living in caravans and travelling, the applicant's "private life" and "family life" were also concerned.   54.    The Court, in its Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 November 1986 (Series A no. 109), noted that the applicants had established the property in question as their home, had retained ownership of it intending to return there, had lived in it with a view to taking up permanent residence, had relinquished their other home and had not established any other in the United Kingdom.   That property was therefore to be considered their "home" for the purposes of Article 8 (art. 8) (loc. cit., p. 19, para. 46).   Although in the Gillow case the applicant's home had initially been established legally, similar considerations apply in the present case.   The Court is satisfied that the applicant bought the land to establish her residence there.   She has lived there almost continuously since 1988 - save for an absence of two weeks, for family reasons, in 1993 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above) - and it has not been suggested that she has established, or intends to establish, another residence elsewhere.   The case therefore concerns the applicant's right to respect for her "home".   55.    In view of the above conclusion it is unnecessary for the Court to decide whether the case also concerns the applicant's right to respect for her "private life" and "family life".    B. Whether there was an "interference by a public authority"   56.    The applicant asked the Court to review the designation regime under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (see paragraphs 35-37 above), which in her contention made it extremely difficult for Gypsies to follow their traditional lifestyle, and the criminalisation of "unauthorised campers" by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (see paragraphs 41-42 above), which, she submitted, was even more restrictive.   57.    The Commission considered that it was empowered only to examine the applicant's complaints in so far as she had been directly affected by the measures in question.   Neither the Caravan Sites Act 1968 nor the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 had ever been applied to the detriment of the applicant.   58.    The Government submitted that "to the extent that there [had] been any interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1)", such interference consisted of the enforcement against her of planning controls.   59.    It not being the Court's task to review legislation in the abstract, the Court will confine itself as far as possible to examining the specific issues raised by the case before it (see, as a recent authority, the Bellet v. France judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 42, para. 34).   It does not appear that any measures based on either the Caravan Sites Act 1968 or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 have ever been taken against the applicant.   What is more, the order designating South Cambridgeshire entered into force only on 13 August 1993 (see paragraph 19 above), well after the enforcement notice (9 April 1990 - see paragraph 15 above) and the decision of the Secretary of State (16 April 1991 - see paragraph 17 above).   It is not therefore within the competence of the Court to entertain those of the applicant's claims which are based on these Acts. 60.    On the other hand, the applicant was refused the planning permission which would have allowed her to live in the caravans on her land, was required to remove the caravans and prosecuted for failing to do so (see paragraphs 14-18 above), all pursuant to the relevant sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.   This undoubtedly constitutes "interference by a public authority" with the applicant's exercise of her right to respect for her home (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Gillow judgment, p. 19, para. 47).    C. Whether the interference was "in accordance with the law"   61.    It was not contested that the measures to which the applicant was subjected were "in accordance with the law".   The Court finds no cause to arrive at a different conclusion.    D. Whether the interference pursued a "legitimate aim"   62.    According to the Government, the measures in question were taken in the enforcement of planning controls aimed at furthering highway safety, the preservation of the environment and public health. The legitimate aims pursued were therefore public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of health and the protection of the rights of others.   The Commission accepted this in substance but noted that the aspect of highway safety, which figured prominently in the Council's decisions of 8 March 1990, the inspector's report of 14 February 1991 and, by implication, the Secretary of State's decision of 16 April 1991 (see paragraphs 14-17 above), was no longer relied on in later decisions.   The applicant did not dispute that the authorities had acted in the furtherance of a legitimate aim. 63.    On the facts of the case the Court sees no reason to doubt that the measures in question pursued the legitimate aims stated by the Government. E. Whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" 1. Arguments before the Court    (a) The applicant   64.    The applicant accepted that Gypsies should not be immune from planning controls but argued that the burden placed on her was disproportionate.   She stated that, seeking to act within the law, she had purchased the site to provide a safe and stable environment for her children and to be near the school they were attending.   65.    She drew attention to the fact that at the time of the events complained of, the official site further down Meadow Drove had not yet opened.   In any event, the official site had since proved unsuitable for a single woman with children.   There had been reports of crime and violence there and the inspector's report of May 1995 had noted that the site was bleak and exposed (see paragraph 22 above).   In the circumstances, therefore, the official site could not be considered an acceptable alternative for the applicant's own site.   On the other hand, the same report had noted that the applicant's site was well maintained.   It could also be adequately screened by vegetation, which would lessen its visual impact on the countryside.   66.    Finally, the applicant considered that there was no further alternative open to her as the cost of stationing her caravans on a private site in the vicinity was prohibitive.    (b) The Government   67.    The Government noted that planning laws were necessary in a modern society for the preservation of urban and rural landscape.   This reflected the needs of the entire population.   In assessing the need for particular measures, the domestic authorities required a wide margin of appreciation.   In the present context, it was necessary to construe Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8) consistently with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), which allowed the State, amongst other things, to enforce such laws as it deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest.   68.    National law was designed to achieve a fair balance between the interests of individuals and those of the community as a whole.   In particular, it provided for a quasi