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

Gypsy status for planning purposes is assessed functionally by reference to the person’s way of life at the time of determination. Temporary cessation of travelling, including because of illness or family circumstances, does not necessarily end that status if the nomadic habit has not been abandoned. Permanent retirement from travelling may end the status, whatever the reason, although it may later be recovered if circumstances and intention change. The relevant question is permanence of intention and abandonment, not whether the cessation was voluntary. Government guidance supporting permanent sites for gypsies does not provide a retirement site for a person who has abandoned the nomadic lifestyle.

The claimant local planning authority challenged an inspector’s decision on an enforcement appeal. The inspector granted personal planning permission for mobile homes and touring caravans after treating Mrs Doran and her family as gypsies under section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

The inspector accepted that the family had decided to settle and cease their nomadic lifestyle, but considered that ill health did not end gypsy status because the decision was involuntary. The central issue was whether that approach involved an error of law.

1. The appeals under sections 288 and 289 were allowed. The planning permissions were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination. Permission was granted for the section 289 appeal.
2. The inspector applied the wrong legal test. The relevant inquiry is functional and concerns the person’s way of life at the time of determination. A person may retain gypsy status while temporarily unable to travel because of illness or family circumstances, provided the nomadic habit has not been abandoned. Conversely, permanent retirement from travelling may end the status, irrespective of whether retirement resulted from illness, age or choice. The status may later be recovered if the circumstances and intention change.
3. The inspector’s distinction of Hearne v National Assembly for Wales [2000] JPL 161 was therefore wrong. The decisive issue was permanence of intention, not voluntariness.
4. The reasoning in Wrexham County Borough Council v The National Assembly of Wales and Others [2004] JPL 65 required that approach. The inspector’s findings that the family had decided to settle and cease travelling were incompatible with gypsy status on the stated reasoning.
5. Circular 1/94 was also misunderstood. Its purpose was to enable gypsies to maintain their nomadic lifestyle while having more permanent accommodation to which they could return. It did not support a permanent retirement place for those who had given up that lifestyle. On remission, the permanence of the family’s intention had to be reconsidered, tested against the evidence given at the inquiry.

• Inspector: On 25 November 2002, the inspector allowed the enforcement appeal and granted personal planning permission for up to four mobile homes and four touring caravans.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The inspector’s decision was quashed and remitted for redetermination. The court refused permission to appeal because the issue had been clarified by the Court of Appeal.