CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 18 janvier 2001

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C38CC87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .sDD5CCF06 { width:231.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD9B6C527 { width:281.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5478A8AC { width:179.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .sD1A3DB65 { width:2.53pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4FA927EA { width:239.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4495075F { width:234.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s40E223D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDD435C07 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C1A34E8 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBDC18A57 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s61BF121A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA24E45C3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF181E89C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:150% } .s365B8ACF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:150% } .s4442EB1B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379756F8 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA0FE8DC4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA8757A23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF5932557 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA88AA7F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C574D27 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; line-height:150%; font-size:10pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s4DECE301 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sAB8EA6EC { width:207.79pt; display:inline-block } .sF1FACC75 { width:201.45pt; display:inline-block } .s68E59701 { width:48.56pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sF336C50E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA20183E4 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:left } .s8913EA0E { width:283.5pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }                   CASE OF JANE SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Application no. 25154/94)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   18 January 2001     This judgment is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the official reports of selected judgments and decisions of the Court. In the case of Jane Smith v. the United Kingdom , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   L. Wildhaber , President ,   Mr   J.-P. C osta ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   G. B onello ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   R. T ürmen ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   V. S trážnická ,   Mr   P. L orenzen ,   Mr   M. F ischbach ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze , judges,   Lord Justice S chiemann , ad hoc judge , and also of Mr M. de Salvia , Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 24 May and 29 November 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case was referred to the Court, in accordance with the provisions applicable prior to the entry into force of Protocol No.   11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), [1] by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 30 October 1999 and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“the Government”), on 10 December 1999 (Article   5   §   4 of Protocol No.   11 and former Articles   47 and   48 of the Convention). 2.     The case originated in an application (no. 25154/94) against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission under former Article   25 of the Convention by a British citizen, Mrs Jane Smith (“the applicant”), on 4   May 1994. 3.     The applicant alleged that planning and enforcement measures taken against her in respect of her occupation of her land in her caravans violated her right to respect for home, her family and private life contrary to Article   8 of the Convention. She complained that these measures also disclosed an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that she had no effective access to court to challenge the decisions taken by the planning authorities contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. She further complained that she was subject to discrimination as a gypsy contrary to Article 14 of the Convention and that her children had been denied education contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. 4.     The Commission declared the application admissible on 4 March 1998. In its report of 25 October 1999 (former Article   31 of the Convention), it expressed the opinion that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (18 votes to 8), that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (21 votes to 5), that there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (21 votes to 5), that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention (24 votes to 2) and that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention (18 votes to 8). [2] 5.     Before the Court the applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Messrs Lance Kent & Co., solicitors practising in Berkhamsted. The United Kingdom Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   Llewellyn of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 6.     On 13 December 1999, the panel of the Grand Chamber determined that the case should be decided by the Grand Chamber (Rule 100 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article   27 §§   2 and   3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Sir Nicolas Bratza, the judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom, who had taken part in the Commission’s examination of the case, withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule   28). The Government accordingly appointed Lord Justice Schiemann to sit as an ad hoc judge in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   29 §   1). 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed a memorial. Third-party comments were also received from European Roma Rights Centre, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article   36   §   2 of the Convention and Rule   61   §   3). 8.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 May 2000 (Rule   59   §   2). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the respondent Government Mr H. Llewellyn,   Agent , Mr D. Pannick Q.C., Mr D. Elvin Q.C., Mr M. Shaw,   Counsel, Mr D. Russell, Mr S. Marshall-Camm,   Advisers; (b)     for the applicant Mr R. Drabble Q.C., Mr T. Jones, Mr M. Hunt,     Counsel , Mrs D. Allen,   Solicitor.   The Court heard addresses by Mr Drabble and Mr Pannick. 9.     On 29 November 2000, Mr Makarczyk, who was unable to take part in further consideration of the case, was replaced by Mr Bonello (Rules   24   §   5   (b) and 28). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.     The applicant is a gypsy by birth. Since her birth she has travelled constantly, mainly in the Surrey area, with her family in search of work. After marrying her husband, A, approximately 20 years ago, this nomadic way of life continued. They have five children, born in 1975, 1977, 1982, 1989 and 1994. 11.     The applicant and A are illiterate, as, due to their way of life, they have received little, if any, formal education. They regard travelling as detrimental to both the health of their family and to the education of their children. The applicant suffers from depression, her husband from severe gout and several of her children are asthmatic. 12.     In pursuit of a more stable existence, the applicant and her husband applied repeatedly throughout the years for places on many of the local private and official sites in Surrey including the official sites in Runnymede. Their applications proved unsuccessful as all the sites were full with long waiting lists. Consequently, the applicant and her husband had no option but to continue travelling. They were required to move on from roadside to roadside on innumerable occasions. For a period of time they stayed at a private site but when it was redeveloped as an official site, they were forced to move on as no space was available for them. In 1984 they stayed on a relative’s site for a period of time but were forced to leave. While the Government have suggested that in fact the applicants owned this land and that it received planning permission, this was denied by the applicant. According to the applicant, the land belonged to her brother. When, following his divorce, the land was ordered to be sold by the court as part of the financial settlement, the applicant had to leave. 13.     In March 1993, the applicant bought land known as 111A Almners Road, Runnymede. It was a portion of a garden in a Green Belt area where there was already some residential development. The applicant moved a mobile home onto the land and took up residence with her family.   In a declaration dated 7 March 1996 the applicant’s uncle, Jasper Smith, a member of the Gypsy Council and an employee of Surrey County Council, stated that he had attempted on numerous occasions prior to 1993 to obtain a site on an official site on behalf of the applicant without success. 14.     On 25 June 1993, Runnymede Borough Council (“the Council”) rejected the applicant’s application to join the waiting list for rented council accommodation on the basis that they had not lived in the borough for a minimum of three years. The applicant alleged that by this time they had lived for many years in the Runnymede area, although they had been compelled to move on frequently from place to place. 15.     In 1988, the High Court had granted a declaration that Surrey County Council was in breach of its duty under section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide provision for gypsies ( R. v. Secretary of State ex parte Smith [1988] C.O.D. 3). In June 1989, the Secretary of State issued a direction under section 9 of the 1968 Act directing that 190 caravans should be accommodated. However, on 18 August 1989, the Borough of Runnymede was declared a designated area pursuant to section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The area was designated on the basis that it was not expedient for adequate provision to be made for gypsies residing in or resorting to the borough. 16.     The previous owner of 111A Almners Road, also a gypsy, had been refused planning permission in January 1993 to live on the land in a caravan on the basis that it conflicted with local and national planning policies. The Council considered that the stationing of a caravan would be detrimental to the character of the Green Belt. An enforcement notice had been issued requiring discontinuance of the unauthorised use. The applicant was aware of this situation and the fact that the previous owner had appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the refusal of planning permission and the enforcement order. When the applicant purchased the land, she was advised that there was a special concession for granting planning permission to gypsies in Green Belt areas under Circular 28/77. Accordingly, she took over the appeal from the previous owner. 17.     On 20 April 1993, a Public Enquiry was held. An Inspector appointed by the Department of Environment heard evidence and representations from the applicant and the Council. By a letter dated 3 June 1993, the Inspector dismissed the appeal. “10.     The mobile home is situated on an enclosed plot of land fronting Almners Road, adjacent to No. 111. This land is separated from the adjacent house by a screen fence, which continues along the rear boundary of the appeal site. The site is contained on its other side boundary by a row of conifer trees. The land has a frontage of about 19 m to the road, most of which is formed by a hedge. … 12.     From my inspection of the site and its surroundings and from the representations made I consider that there are two main issues… Firstly, whether the use of the land as a residential caravan site for a mobile home and associated operational development is appropriate to this part of the Metropolitan Green Belt; and, if not, secondly, whether there are very special circumstances that would justify the retention of inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 13.     On the first issue, the use of land as a residential caravan site is not one of the purposes listed as being appropriate to the green belt in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2). However, policy C4 of the approved Surrey Structure Plan 1989 and policy PE2 of … the Replacement Structure Plan 1992 provide that gypsy caravan sites may be appropriate and necessary in the green belt, but they will not be considered acceptable as of right. 14.     The appeals site lies within the south west sector of the Metropolitan Green Belt. This section is described as containing valuable green wedges which thrust inwards to the Thames west of Molesey. Lyne is a small settlement located within one of these wedges. Given its location within a narrow stretch of generally open countryside between Virginia Water and Chertsey I agree with the council that the appeals site lies within a particularly sensitive part of the green belt. 15.     From my own observations I agree … that Almners Road comprises three distinct parts and that the appeals site lies within the significant gap between Nos 99 and 131 which is predominantly rural in character despite the presence of Nos 109 and 111. The rustic feel of the locality is enhanced by the woodlands to the rear of <the applicants’> land and the field on the opposite side… Notwithstanding the previous use of the land as part of the garden of No. 111, the unauthorised use and works represent an encroachment of additional development into a predominantly rural locality. It also contributes towards the coalescence of the nearby built up frontages on Almners Road and thereby the merger of nearby settlements. As a result I consider that the development subject to the appeals conflicts with the second and third objectives of government green belt policy listed in PPG2. … 16.     Whilst the mobile home is set behind the front of the adjoining house and its range of visibility from the other direction on Almners Road is limited by conifers on its western boundary, it, and the related operational development is significantly different to the character of the touring caravans that are parked in some of the nearby gardens, which are incidental to the enjoyment of the residential curtilages within which they stand. Notwithstanding the support of some nearby residents, I consider that the discernible presence of the unauthorised development on the appeals site is harmful to the appearance of this mainly rural location. … In light of this and its particular impact on the aims of green belt policy, I conclude … that the use of the land for a residential caravan site for a mobile home and associated operational development is not appropriate to this part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. 17.     Turning to my second issue, Circular 28/77 states that it may be necessary to accept the establishment of gypsy caravan sites in green belt areas and that there are advantages in gypsies providing their own sites. However, in designating Runnymede under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 on the grounds of expediency the Secretary of State gave significant weight to the extent of and characteristics of the green belt within the borough and the number of sites that had already been provided within these areas. … 18.     Circular 28/77 advises that after a district or borough has been designated, authorities may have to be prepared to increase the provision they have made if there is a subsequent expansion of the gypsy population in their area and it is nearly 4 years since the designation of Runnymede in June 1989. However since then the quarterly surveys indicate that the number of vans parked illegally in the borough has tended to decline. Consequently, having regard to the reasons given for designation, there does not appear to be a case at this time for permitting additional gypsy caravan sites, in the green belt in Runnymede, contrary to policies H12 and H09, unless there are very special circumstances. 19.     Having regard to the personal circumstances of <the applicants> none of the family requires regular hospital treatment and I do not consider the ailments of <the applicant and her husband> and two of their children are so exceptional or debilitating as to constitute compelling reasons for allowing inappropriate development in the green belt. Whilst I sympathise with <the applicants’> aim to have the two youngest children educated, only one of these is currently at school and there is no evidence that this locality is preferable to any other in terms of access to educational facilities. 20.     I can appreciate <the applicants’> current desire to settle in one place but there is no specific reason why this has to be in the green belt. With regard to the consequences of <the applicants> having to vacate the site you state that they would have no alternative to reverting to their previous existence of moving from one unauthorised site to another, with consequent hardship for the family and inconvenience to the general public. In this respect … the borough and district councils have no record that <the applicants> have sought a place on any of the official sites and <the applicant> stated that she has not enquired whether there was any space on any of the sites occupied   by her relatives. Additionally, it would be open to <the applicants> to seek priority housing from the Council. 21.     … I accept that <the applicant and her husband> have lived and worked in this area for some time and that it might not be possible to accommodate <their> mobile home on any authorised site within the area. However, on the basis of the evidence at the inquiry I am not convinced that all avenues relating to possible alternative accommodation have been fully explored. I am not, therefore, assured that <the applicants> inevitably would have to return to living on unauthorised sites… In any event, I am not persuaded that such a consequence … together with any limited benefits that might arise in terms of the health and education of the family represent very special circumstances that would justify the retention of this inappropriate development in this particularly sensitive part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. …” 18.     The applicant remained on her land in the caravan as the family had not been offered a place on an official campsite and thus had no alternative legal site to place their caravan. 19.     On 29 July 1993, the applicant applied to the Council for planning permission to build a bungalow, of which there were already some 20 on Almners Road. The Council refused planning permission. On 16 September 1993, the applicant appealed this decision by written statement as she could not afford a public enquiry. 20.     On 29 November 1993, an Inspector appointed by the Department of the Environment dismissed the appeal on similar grounds to the earlier appeal, namely that the bungalow was inappropriate within the Green Belt and that there were no special circumstances which would override the strong presumption against such a development, which in this case would contribute to the coalescence of existing developments and further diminish the rural character of the area. As a consequence, the applicant and her husband were in breach of the enforcement notice and liable to receive a summons issued by the Council for breach of Planning Regulations. 21.     Injunction proceedings were instituted against the applicant and her family by the Council. On 5 September 1994, the Council obtained an injunction in the High Court requiring the applicant and her family to move off their land immediately. The applicant applied for judicial review of this decision and was granted limited legal aid. However, she received counsel’s opinion which advised that the application was doomed to failure. 22.     In light of the new Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which came into force on 3 November 1994, the applicant, in fear of being on the roadside, applied to be placed on the local authority homeless list on 4 August 1994. The Council informed the applicant’s solicitors on 4   November 1994 that the applicant had been placed on the list. 23.     The applicant was offered accommodation in two flats in a town. However, the rent was excessively high and there was no facility to keep her husband’s van nor his tarmacadaming and landscape gardening equipment. Moreover, the environment next to a busy, treeless road was contrary to the country existence which she and her family had enjoyed all their lives. They have applied for accommodation in a more natural environment but no offer has yet been made. The Council had previously offered three alternative pieces of land which were subsequently withdrawn due to a methane gas leak, boggy ground and vicinity to a rubbish dump respectively. 24.     The local authority has stated that, in the event that the applicant is forced to leave the site, the authority will provide temporary accommodation for her until permanent accommodation becomes available. However, in view of the restrictions on development within the Green Belt, all accommodation offered will be in urban areas. 25.     The 1995 Annual Report from Surrey County Council planning department revealed that following the coming into force of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 the County Council no longer had an obligation to identify new gypsy caravan sites and that unless very special circumstances were proved it was unlikely that new sites would be allowed in Green Belt and sensitive areas. The statistics for 1994 showed that the official sites in the area catered for 44 caravans while there were another 26 caravans on unauthorised sites. 26.     The applicant stated that in May 1997 the local authority decided to institute proceedings against her. Though no proceedings were issued, the Council threatened to do so from time to time and she lived under the threat of committal for contempt. The applicant’s husband continued to suffer from severe gout and was recently in hospital for treatment. He and the applicant both suffer from depression. Her eldest son, his wife, their son and baby lived with her, as well as three other children. The applicant’s children of school age were attending the local school regularly. The applicant stated that she continued to visit gypsy sites to see whether pitches were available but she has not been offered a pitch on any site and has not received any visits from the local authority. 27.     In the Runnymede area, there were two local authority sites accommodating 50 caravans. In addition there were 12 caravans on authorised sites and 18 caravans on unauthorised sites. The applicant submitted that since the 1989 direction by the Secretary of State only 22 additional pitches were provided. Since 1996, there had been no increase in provision in either public or private sites and no decrease in the number of unlawful encampments. The applicant submitted that all the area of the Council was in the Metropolitan Green Belt area while the Government stated that only a large part of it was. The diagram and materials submitted from the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 indicates that 70% of the County was Green Belt, 20% urban and 10% countryside beyond the Green Belt, which includes some areas designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) or designated landscape value (ADLV). Parts of the Green Belt area are also classed as AONB and ADLV. AONB and ADLV areas account for 40% of the County. According to the diagram, the Runnymede area consists entirely of Green Belt and urban centres. 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. 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). 29.     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). 30.     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, § 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). 31.     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). 32.     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. 33.     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. 34.     Where any steps required by an enforcement notice to be taken are not taken within the period for compliance with the notice, the local authority may enter the land and take the steps and recover from the person who is then the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so (section 178 of the 1990 Act). B.     Green Belt policy 35.     The purpose of Green Belts and the operation of the policy to protect them is set out in the national policy document PPG 2 (January 1995). “1.1.     The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, which have been an essential element of planning policy for some four decades … 1.4.     The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in agricultural, forestry or other use. They can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development. 1.5.     There are five purposes in Green Belts: – to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; – to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; – to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; – to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and – to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. … 2.1.     The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. … 3.1.     The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances… 3.2.     Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning such development.” C.     The Caravan Sites Act 1968 36.     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, in particular the closure of commons carried out by local authorities pursuant to section 23 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Section 16 of the 1968 Act defined “gypsies” 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”. 37.     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”. 38.     The Secretary of State could direct local authorities to provide caravan sites where it appeared to him to be necessary (section 9). 39.     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). 40.     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). 41.     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. D.     The Cripps Report 42.     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”). 43.     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.” 44.     The report made numerous recommendations for improving this situation. E.     Circular 28/77 45.     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. 46.     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. F.     Circular 57/78 47.     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”. 48.     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. G.     The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 49.     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 and the grant scheme referred to above. 50.     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”. 51.     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). 52.     In the case of R. v. Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22 September 1995), Sedley J. referred to the 1994 Act as “Draconic” legislation. He commented that: “For centuries the commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had become nomadic. Enough common land had survived the centuries of enclosure to make this way of life still sustainable, but by s.23 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 local authorities were given the power to close the commons to travellers. This they proceeded to do with great energy, but made no use of the concomitant powers given them by s.24 of the same Act to open caravan sites to compensate for the closure of the commons. By the Caravans Act 1968, therefore Parliament legislated to make the s.24 power a duty, resting in rural areas upon county councils rather than district councils… For the next quarter of a century there followed a history of non-compliance with the duties imposed by the Act of 1968, marked by a series of decisions of this court holding local authorities to be in breach of their statutory duty, to apparently little practical effect. The default powers vested in central government to which the court was required to defer, were rarely, if ever used. The culmination of the tensions underlying the history of non-compliance was the enactment of … the Act of 1994 …” H.     Circular 1/94 53.     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 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.” (para. 20) 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 ...” (para. 22). It was indicated that as a rule it would not be appropriate to make provision for gypsy sites in areas of open land where development was severely restricted, for example Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Nor were gypsy sites regarded as being among those uses of land normally appropriate in a Green Belt (paragraph 13). I.     Circular 18/94 54.     Further guidance issued by the Secretary of State dated 23   November 1994 concerned the unauthorised camping by gypsies and the power to give a direction to leave the land (CJPOA above). Paragraphs 6-9 required local authorities to adopt “a policy of toleration towards unauthorised gypsy encampments: “6.     ... Where gypsies are camped unlawfully on council land and are not causing a level of nuisance which cannot be effectively controlled, an immediate forced eviction might result in unauthorised camping on a site elsewhere in the area which could give rise to greater nuisance. Accordingly, authorities should consider tolerating gypsies’ presence on the land for short periods and could examine the ways of minimising the level of nuisance on such tolerated sites, for example by providing basic services for gypsies e.g. toilets, a skip for refuse and a supply of drinking water. 8.     Where gypsies are unlawfully camped on Government-owned land, it is for the local authority, with the agreement of the land-owning Department, to take any necessary steps to ensure that the encampment does not constitute a hazard to public health. It will continue to be the policy of the Secretaries of State that Government Departments should act in conformity with the advice that gypsies should not be moved unnecessarily from unauthorised encampments when they are causing no nuisance. 9.     The Secretaries of State continue to consider that local authorities should not use their powers to evict gypsies needlessly. They should use their powers in a humane and compassionate fashion and primarily to reduce nuisance and to afford a higher level of protection to private owners of land.” 55.     Paragraphs 10-13 further require local authorities to consider their obligations under other legislation before taking any decisions under the 1994 Act. These obligations include their duties concerning pregnant women and newly-born children, the welfare and education of children and the housing of homeless persons. In a judgment of 22 September 1995 ( R.   v.   Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson , R. v. Wealden District Council, ex parte Wales and R. v. Wealden District Council, ex parte Stratford , unreported), the High Court held that it would be an error of law for any local authority to ignore those duties which must be considered from the earliest stages. J.     Gypsy sites policies in development plans 56.     In a letter dated 25 May 1998, the Department of the Environment drew to the attention of all local planning authorities in England that Circular 1/94 required local planning authorities to assess the need for gypsy accommodation in their areas and make suitable locational and/or criteria based policies against which to decide planning applications. The Government was concerned that this guidance had not been taken up. ACERT research (see below) had showed that 24% of local authorities (96) had no policy at all on gypsy sites and that many in the process of reviewing their plans at the time of the survey did not feel it necessary to include policies on gypsy provision. It was emphasised that it was important to include consideration of gypsy needs at an early stage in drawing up structure and development plans and the detailed policies should be provided. Compliance with this guidance was essential in fulfilling the Government’s objective that gypsies should seek to provide their own accommodation, applying for planning permission like everyone else. It was necessary, therefore, that adequate gypsy site provision be made in development plans to facilitate this process. K.     1998 ACERT research into provision for private gypsy sites 57.     The Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and Other Travellers (ACERT) which carried out research sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, noted in its report that since 1994 private site provision had increased by 30 caravans per year while the pace of public site provision had declined by 100 caravans, disclosing that the pace of private site provision had not increased sufficiently to counterbalance decreases in public site provision. Noting the increase of gypsies in housing and the increased enforcement powers under the 1994 Act, it questioned, if these trends continued, the extent to which the ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity of Gypsy and Traveller people would be protected. 58.     The research looked, inter alia , at 114 refused private site applications, which showed that 97% related to land within the countryside and that 96% were refused on grounds relating to the amenity value (e.g.   Green Belt, conservation area locations). Of the 50 gypsy site applicants interviewed, for most acquiring permission for their own land was an important factor in improving the quality of life, gaining independence and providing security. For many, the education of their children was another important reason for private site application. All save one had applied for permission retrospectively. 59.     The report stated that the figures for success rates in 624 planning appeals showed that before 1992 the success rate had averaged 35% but had decreased since. Having regard however to the way in which data was recorded, the actual success rate was probably between 35% and 10% as given as the figures in 1992 and 1996 by the gypsy groups and Department of the Environment respectively. Notwithstanding the objectives of planning policy that local autho