CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 1997

.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. 27027/95                       by David COOPER                       against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              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 23 January 1995 by David COOPER against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 April 1995 under file No. 27027/95;        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      19 December 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 12 February 1997;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a British citizen born in 1943 and resident in Wickham, Hampshire. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. T. Christie of the Romani Rights Association, Wisbech. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.        The applicant is a gypsy by birth. He followed a nomadic lifestyle in the southern area of England both as a child and following his marriage in 1962 with his wife and child. The applicant and his family were often moved on by the authorities from their stopping places and the applicant's son was deprived of a normal uninterrupted education.        Finally, in 1987, after being served with notice to leave the farmland where they had been staying, the applicant and his son purchased land nearby in a rural area in Hampshire and took up residence in two caravans. Planning permission for the two caravans was refused by the Winchester City Council (the Council) and by letter dated 26 July 1988, the planning inspector rejected the appeal against the refusal.        A further application and appeal concerning an application for permission for the applicant's two caravans plus 11 others (in order to set up a private site), were refused on 6 August and 21 October 1991 respectively.        A third application for permission for the applicant's two caravans was rejected by the Council in 1993. In his appeal, the applicant submitted that the approval of agricultural workers' mobile homes on neighbouring holdings had significantly changed the character of the area and the way in which his development should be regarded. He also submitted that the education of his two grandchildren who were now living with them would suffer if they were required to move on. His appeal was supported by Hampshire County Council which has the overall responsibility for the provision of gypsy sites in the area. By letter dated 12 August 1993, the planning inspector held that, as on the previous applications, the harm caused by the development to the rural character and appearance of the countryside was not outweighed by interests of the applicant. The inspector also referred to the fact that a council operated site was not far away and that vacant pitches were regularly available.        The applicant applied again unsuccessfully for planning permission for his caravans in or about 1994. He appealed. In the proceedings conducted by the planning inspector, the Hampshire County Council made representations supporting the applicant as qualifying for favourable consideration under Circular 1/94 which indicates that private sites provision for gypsies is to be encouraged. The planning inspector rejected his appeal against the refusal of planning permission on 18 January 1995. The inspector noted the previous three applications. He agreed that the site was in a reasonably tidy state and that there were no very open views on to the site. However he considered that it significantly detracted from the pleasant rural character of the locality and this was unacceptable unless there was overriding exceptional circumstances. He found however that, given the fact that there was no shortage of gypsy sites in the area, considerations in favour of the applicant amounted to no more than a personal preference.        The applicant has been prosecuted for breach of enforcement notices on a number of occasions and has received fines of £50 and £500. It appears that the local authority's application for an injunction has been granted.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant invoked Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. He submitted, inter alia, that he and his family were being prevented from living in their own mobile home on their own land in the traditional way of gypsy life. The applicant submitted that they have been subject to the xenophobic attitudes which prevail in the planning system and that the way in which the planning policies are framed and applied discriminates against gypsies, in providing, inter alia, unrealistic if not impossible, preconditions for permission for private sites.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 23 January 1995 and registered on 12 April 1995.        On 22 October 1996, the Commission decided to invite the Government to make observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.        The Government's observations were submitted on 19 December 1996.        By letter dated 12 February 1997, the applicant's representative informed that Secretariat that the applicant did not wish to continue with the application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission recalls that the applicant's representative has stated that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his complaints.        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application before the Commission. The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.        It follows that the application may be struck out the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                               J. LIDDY         Secretary                                  President    to the First Chamber                       of the First Chamber