Basildon District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

For the statutory definition of Gypsies, a person may retain Gypsy status despite not currently travelling where the cessation of travel is temporary or compelled, rather than chosen. The decision-maker must assess the position at the date of determination and decide, as a matter of fact and degree, whether the person has abandoned a nomadic way of life.

Relevant considerations include ethnic or traditional Gypsy background, past travel, present intentions and the realistic possibility of resuming travel, and the reasons for the current absence of travel. A planning decision must address the principal, important and controversial issues in sufficient detail to reveal the reasoning. Where those matters have been considered and the law has been correctly applied, the court will not quash the decision merely because it might have evaluated the evidence differently.

Basildon District Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the First Secretary of State’s decision allowing an appeal under section 78 and granting permission for a Gypsy caravan site.

The Council argued that the inspector had erred in law, failed to give adequate reasons and failed to take relevant matters into account. The central issue was whether the respondents had abandoned their nomadic way of life, and therefore their Gypsy status, because they were not travelling at the date of the determination.

The court applied the approach stated in Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales and Berry, [2003] EWCA Civ 835.

1. Appeal dismissed. The inspector’s decision and the First Secretary of State’s decision stood.
2. Section 24(8) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines Gypsies as persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origins. Applying the approach in Wrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales and Berry, [2003] EWCA Civ 835, the relevant question was whether the respondents were actually living a travelling life at the date of determination. If not, it was a matter of fact and degree whether the current absence of travel meant that they had abandoned a nomadic way of life.
3. Relevant considerations included the respondents’ traditional Gypsy background, their past nomadic life, their honest and realistically realisable intention to resume travelling, the likely timing and circumstances of any return to travelling, and the reasons why they were not travelling. The inspector had considered those matters, including the lack of temporary sites, the respondents’ wish to continue living in caravans, their locally based employment and their attendance at Gypsy fairs.
4. The inspector had also considered the individual circumstances of both respondents, including health and children’s education. The evidence supported the conclusion that they had ceased travelling from necessity rather than choice and had not abandoned their original Gypsy status.
5. The reasons given were adequate. A decision-maker need state reasons in sufficient detail to enable the reader to understand the conclusion on the principal, important and controversial issues. The inspector directed himself correctly, assessed the evidence and explained why each respondent retained Gypsy status. No error of law, failure to consider relevant matters or perversity was established.
6. Costs followed the event, subject to a reduction in the recoverable attendance by an agent. Permission to appeal was refused because an appeal was not then likely to succeed.

The First Secretary of State allowed the respondents’ appeals under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the Council’s refusal of planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the Council’s section 288 challenge and refused permission to appeal.