Application No. 25938/94
by Edward Witney
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 3 December 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
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 1 August 1994 by
Edward Witney against the United Kingdom and registered on 14 September
1994 under file No. 25938/94;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 29 November 1995 to communicate the
application without requesting observations;
- the letter dated 7 October 1996 from the applicant's legal
representatives;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1931 and resident in
Hemel Hempstead. He is represented before the Commission by
Messrs. Lance Kent & Co. solicitors practising at Berkhamstead. The
facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a gypsy by birth. His family travelled in search
of work and he had no education. When he married, the applicant and his
wife continued travelling together. They have eight children. The
applicant was a scrap metal dealer, roof repairer and tree lopper.
The applicant and his wife obtained a pitch on an official gypsy
site at Stockwell, Luton. They experienced harassment from other
travellers and decided that such behaviour was a bad influence on their
children. As a result, they reverted to travelling on the roadside from
place to place.
Due to continuous harassment by the police while on the roadside,
the applicant decided to purchase some land where he could settle down
permanently. He had developed arthritis and had been forced to give up
his work and to seek lighter work. He was unable to find any land and
accepted a pitch on an official gypsy site at Hemel Hempstead. The
applicant and his wife lived there for seven years. As a result of
harassment from other gypsies on the site, the applicant looked for
suitable land to purchase.
Eventually, the applicant found a piece of land at 50 Sheepcote
Dell Road, Holmer Green, Buckinghamshire which was no longer required
for farming purposes. He was advised by his solicitors that he had a
real chance of obtaining planning permission to reside there and so he
purchased the land on 26 March 1990. The applicant's wife had developed
asthmatic and bronchial problems and the applicant was glad to have
found such a healthy, country location.
Initially, the applicant erected a barn and used the land for
grazing horses. When he had sufficient money, he put down hardcore and
in 1992 he moved his caravan onto the land and began living there with
his wife. In January 1993 he applied for planning permission to site
a mobile home on the land as their residence. Chiltern District Council
refused the application on 25 March 1993 on the grounds that the
development was inappropriate in the Metropolitan Green Belt, the
appearance of the development would not be in keeping with the rural
character of the locality, which is designated as part of the Chilterns
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and that the development would
create a precedent for other similar proposals.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of planning
permission. On 22 March 1994 a Public Inquiry was held by an Inspector
appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In a decision
letter dated 20 May 1994, he dismissed the appeal and upheld the
Council's decision. He concluded that the needs of the applicant and
his wife did not represent very special circumstances sufficient to
overcome the strong policy objection to, and the general presumption
against, inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Appeals to the
High Court against a decision of the Secretary of State are competent
on a point of law only. The applicant sought Counsel's opinion on this
question and Counsel confirmed that no error on a point of law had been
made by the Inspector.
In March 1994, the applicant and his wife moved onto their
daughter's pitch at Hemel Hempstead. They moved there temporarily
because Mrs. Witney has advanced stomach cancer and requires intensive
nursing. Her daughter helps provide the care she needs.
The local planning authority are requiring removal of the
applicant's mobile home from his land. The applicant and his wife are
living with their daughter as visitors and could be required to leave
the site at any time. Although the area was designated under the
Caravan Sites Act 1968, it appears that there are insufficient official
gypsy pitches in the area to satisfy demand. Since the applicant has
nowhere he can legally place his caravan, he faces the threat of
criminal prosecution. The applicant is anxious to return to his own
land, as soon as his wife is well enough to do so, as she finds the
noise, lack of privacy and overcrowding at her daughter's site
difficult to cope with. He would also be able to provide a home for his
other daughter who is unmarried.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant claimed that his rights under Article 8 of the
Convention are being interfered with. He complained of being prevented
from firstly, living with his family in a mobile home on his own land
and secondly, from pursuing the traditional gypsy lifestyle and
culture. He submitted that due to planning regulations and the shortage
of sites built for gypsies, he had no option but to buy his own land.
However, he has been denied the right to live on his own land in a
mobile home by both the local planning authority and the Secretary of
State for the Environment.
The applicant alleged that his rights under Article 6 para. 1 of
the Convention have been violated. The decision to uphold the refusal
of planning permission was made by an Inspector appointed by the
Secretary of State for the Environment. No appeal to a court of law
against the Inspector's decision was possible because the issues were
of fact and not of law. It was claimed that in these circumstances,
since the Inspector is a salaried employee of the Secretary of State,
the Inquiry cannot be considered to be an independent and impartial
tribunal.
The applicant invoked Article 14, claiming that he was being
discriminated against on the grounds of race, national or social
origin, association with a national minority and birth or other status.
It was alleged that such discrimination is caused by popular prejudice
against gypsies and a failure by local and national Government to act
despite that prejudice.
The applicant also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect
of being denied the right to live peacefully with his wife on his own
land.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 1 August 1994 and registered
on 14 September 1994.
On 29 November 1995, the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the Government, without asking for written observations
on the admissibility and merits of the application, pending the outcome
of the proceedings before the Court in the case of Buckley v. the
United Kingdom (No. 20348/92, Comm. Rep. 11.1.95) and in the case of
Bryan v. the United Kingdom (No. 19178/92, Comm. Rep. 28.6.94).
The Court delivered its judgment in the Bryan case on 22 November
1995 (Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 335-A) and in the Buckley case on 25
September 1996 (Eur. Court HR, to be published in Reports 1996).
On 7 October 1996, the applicant's representatives wrote to the
Commission stating that in light of the Court's judgment in Buckley,
they wished to withdraw the application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that the applicant's representatives wish
to withdraw the application in light of the Court's judgment in the
Buckley case, where it found no violation of Article 8 of the
Convention in relation to the refusal of planning permission to the
applicant, a gypsy, to reside in caravans on her own land.
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 of 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 ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy