Cases - South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter; Chichester DC v Searle; Wrexham County BC v Berry; Hertsmere BC v Hatty
Record details
- Name
- South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter; Chichester DC v Searle; Wrexham County BC v Berry; Hertsmere BC v Hatty
- Date
- [2003]
- Citation
- UKHL 26
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Planning control - Human Rights Act 1998
- Summary
-
These cases concerned gypsies who had failed to obtain planning permission for sites that they owned. Injunctions had been granted but overturned by the Court of Appeal. The local authorities appealed.
In dismissing the appeals, the House of Lords upheld the guidance given in the Court of Appeal in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. In short, the judge must accept the planning merits as decided, but must not grant an injunction unless he would be prepared to send the defendant to prison for breach. He would not be of this mind unless he had considered all questions of hardship for the defendant and his family, including health and education, and the availability of alternative sites. He must also consider countervailing matters such as flagrancy of breach, the need to enforce planning control in the general interest and the planning history of the site.
The action taken must be proportionate. As to proportionality, Lord Justice Simon Brown said:
'Proportionality requires not only that the injunction be appropriate and necessary for the attainment of the public interest objective sought - here the safeguarding of the environment - but also that it does not impose an excessive burden on the individual whose private interest - here the gypsy's private life and home and the retention of his ethnic identity - are at stake.'