Search
document

Document text Analytics

COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27027/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3680

Document date: May 21, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27027/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3680

Document date: May 21, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27027/95

by David COOPER

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

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 23 January 1995

by David COOPER against the United Kingdom and registered on

12 April 1995 under file No. 27027/95;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

19 December 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 12 February 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1943 and resident in

Wickham, Hampshire. He is represented before the Commission by

Mr. T. Christie of the Romani Rights Association, Wisbech. The facts

as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a gypsy by birth. He followed a nomadic

lifestyle in the southern area of England both as a child and following

his marriage in 1962 with his wife and child. The applicant and his

family were often moved on by the authorities from their stopping

places and the applicant's son was deprived of a normal uninterrupted

education.

Finally, in 1987, after being served with notice to leave the

farmland where they had been staying, the applicant and his son

purchased land nearby in a rural area in Hampshire and took up

residence in two caravans. Planning permission for the two caravans was

refused by the Winchester City Council (the Council) and by letter

dated 26 July 1988, the planning inspector rejected the appeal against

the refusal.

A further application and appeal concerning an application for

permission for the applicant's two caravans plus 11 others (in order

to set up a private site), were refused on 6 August and 21 October 1991

respectively.

A third application for permission for the applicant's two

caravans was rejected by the Council in 1993. In his appeal, the

applicant submitted that the approval of agricultural workers' mobile

homes on neighbouring holdings had significantly changed the character

of the area and the way in which his development should be regarded.

He also submitted that the education of his two grandchildren who were

now living with them would suffer if they were required to move on.

His appeal was supported by Hampshire County Council which has the

overall responsibility for the provision of gypsy sites in the area.

By letter dated 12 August 1993, the planning inspector held that, as

on the previous applications, the harm caused by the development to the

rural character and appearance of the countryside was not outweighed

by interests of the applicant. The inspector also referred to the fact

that a council operated site was not far away and that vacant pitches

were regularly available.

The applicant applied again unsuccessfully for planning

permission for his caravans in or about 1994. He appealed. In the

proceedings conducted by the planning inspector, the Hampshire County

Council made representations supporting the applicant as qualifying for

favourable consideration under Circular 1/94 which indicates that

private sites provision for gypsies is to be encouraged. The planning

inspector rejected his appeal against the refusal of planning

permission on 18 January 1995. The inspector noted the previous three

applications. He agreed that the site was in a reasonably tidy state

and that there were no very open views on to the site. However he

considered that it significantly detracted from the pleasant rural

character of the locality and this was unacceptable unless there was

overriding exceptional circumstances. He found however that, given the

fact that there was no shortage of gypsy sites in the area,

considerations in favour of the applicant amounted to no more than a

personal preference.

The applicant has been prosecuted for breach of enforcement

notices on a number of occasions and has received fines of £50 and

£500. It appears that the local authority's application for an

injunction has been granted.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant invoked Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. He

submitted, inter alia, that he and his family were being prevented from

living in their own mobile home on their own land in the traditional

way of gypsy life. The applicant submitted that they have been subject

to the xenophobic attitudes which prevail in the planning system and

that the way in which the planning policies are framed and applied

discriminates against gypsies, in providing, inter alia, unrealistic

if not impossible, preconditions for permission for private sites.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 23 January 1995 and registered

on 12 April 1995.

On 22 October 1996, the Commission decided to invite the

Government to make observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application.

The Government's observations were submitted on 19 December 1996.

By letter dated 12 February 1997, the applicant's representative

informed that Secretariat that the applicant did not wish to continue

with the application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that the applicant's representative has

stated that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his complaints.

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 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 THE LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant