Planning authority successfully challenges assertion by appellant of gypsy status

A local authority in Kent has successfully challenged an appellant’s assertion of gypsy status in his appeal against an enforcement notice.

Ashford Borough Council issued an enforcement notice to Richard Wood on 25 September 2015 in relation to land in Ruckinge.

The breach of planning control alleged in the notice was without planning permission the change of use of the land from a use for forestry to a use for the stationing of a caravan (mobile home) in residential use; the siting of a portable cabin used in connection with the residential use of the caravan (mobile home); and facilitating operational development comprising the laying of an additional area of hard surfacing and the installation of a septic tank and associated pipework.

Wood appealed under s. 174 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

He claimed that his case should be considered in the light of his gypsy status and the relevant planning policy that comes into play as a result.

The council accepted that Wood was a Romany Gypsy, and came from a gypsy background, but it disputed his claim of gypsy status in the terms set out in the glossary to the government document Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) of August 2015.

The inspector, Stephen Brown, dismissed Wood's appeal except to a limited extent on one ground, and upheld the enforcement notice with variations.

He said he concurred with the council’s view that it could be reasonably expected that there would be some records – quotations, invoices or receipts – available of either of Wood’s occupations (landscaping/building and vehicle trading).

The inspector said he considered the lack of the evidence about the nature of his work and extent of travelling “to be telling matters that count against the likelihood of his leading a nomadic existence”.

While neither of the occupations would be inconsistent with leading a nomadic habit of life, they could equally well be carried out from a fixed base, with short trips away, Brown said.

The inspector added that while it was possible that Wood travelled in a touring caravan – or as he also claimed, in a camper-van – he was not satisfied that that this demonstrated a nomadic habit of life, but was “more akin to travelling for work, in much the same way as a builder might travel to carry out contracts”.

Brown concluded: “On the balance of probabilities I conclude that the appellant has not been able to show that he leads a nomadic habit of life for economic purposes, nor can he be regarded as being in the category of those who have ceased to travel temporarily. He should not be regarded as having gypsy status in the terms set out in the Glossary to the PPTS, and in the light of this cannot rely upon policy set out in that document.”

Giles Atkinson of Six Pump Court appeared for Ashford Borough Council.

The set said that “given the breadth of the definition of ‘gypsies and travellers’ in the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), August 2015” such a successful challenge by a local planning authority was rare.