AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 31219/96

                      by Henry WOOLHEAD

                      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 16 February 1996

by Henry WOOLHEAD against the United Kingdom and registered on

29 April 1996 under file No. 31219/96;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1944 and resident in

North Weald, Essex.  He is represented before the Commission by

Messrs. Biebuyck, solicitors practising in Chelmsford, Essex.

     The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

A.   Particular circumstances of the case

     The applicant is a Romany gypsy by birth.  From the age of seven

he travelled with his family in search of seasonal, agricultural work

within the Home Counties and East Anglia.  Following his marriage in

1962, the applicant occupied a caravan and subsequently a bungalow at

Dobbs Weir, Essex from where he worked with his father trading in scrap

metal and landscape gardening.  In the summer months he would travel

further afield to look for work, principally fruit and hop picking.

Whilst the applicant concedes that he has in course of time travelled

less, in part due to a decline in demand for migrant farm labour, he

nevertheless maintains that travelling has remained an integral part

of his way of life.

     In 1984 the applicant purchased a site at Carisbrook Farm, North

Weald, Essex comprising 2.5 acres of land and including various nissen

huts and corrugated blockwork and wooden sheds, being some ten in

number, dating from the war.

     The site is situated in land designated as part of the local

green belt.  Prior to the applicant's ownership of the site, it had

been used for motor vehicle repairs.  Epping District Council, as the

local planning authority, had at various times taken enforcement action

to prevent its use as such.  Following the applicant's occupancy of the

site in 1988, the District Council issued an enforcement notice against

the use of the site for storing and sorting of electrical components.

In the same year planning permission was refused for a mobile home and

change of use to the storing and sorting of metal.  In February 1989

the District Council issued an enforcement notice against the placing

of a mobile home for human habitation on the site.  In January 1990 an

appeal against the enforcement notice was dismissed, and in May 1991

an application to retain the mobile home in connection with the

establishment of an agricultural business was refused.

     On 28 May 1991 the applicant made a fresh application for

planning permission for a caravan site for one gypsy family comprising

a mobile home, which presently houses the applicant and his wife, a

caravan, which currently houses the applicant's daughter, and parking

facilities for the applicant's touring caravan.

     On 5 November 1991 planning permission was refused by the

District Council on grounds that:

     "The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt.  The

     proposed development is therefore at odds with Government

     guidance, as expressed in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2,

     together with the stated policies of the adopted Local Plan

     and the Approved Essex Structure Plan.  The latter states

     that within the Green Belt permission will not be given,

     except in very special circumstances, for the construction

     of new buildings or for the change of use or extension of

     existing buildings (other than reasonable extensions to

     existing buildings), or for purposes other than

     agriculture, mineral extraction or forestry, small-scale

     facilities for outdoor participatory sport and recreation,

     institutions requiring large grounds, cemeteries or similar

     uses which are open in character.  In the view of the Local

     Planning Authority insufficient reasons have been advanced

     to justify a departure from the policy."

     The applicant appealed against the decision of the District

Council to the Secretary of State for the Environment.  An Inspector

was appointed by the Secretary of State to hold a local inquiry and

report on the merits of the appeal.

     Following the inquiry, in his report issued in July 1992, the

Inspector found that the applicant's life style following his

occupation of the Carisbrook Farm site in 1988 was not sufficiently

nomadic that he could be said to enjoy the status of a gypsy within the

meaning of the Caravans Sites Act 1968 but considered that :

     "should this appeal fail would have to

     abandon his present home and is likely to take up a nomadic

     existence again, thus qualifying as a person to whom the

     authority would owe a duty under the 1968 Act. ... uch

     an outcome would be unlikely to assist the District Council

     in its efforts to achieve designation. ... I conclude

     that ... there are special circumstances in

     this case which, in the light of the advice given in

     Circular 28/77, could justify permitting this form of

     development in the Green Belt."

     The Inspector further considered that "no significant harm to the

character and appearance of the country side results from the presence

of the caravan" and concluded by recommending that the appeal be

allowed.

     On 28 October 1992, the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal.

He gave as his reasons for dismissing the appeal the following :

     "... No evidence was produced to show that

     in the event that the appeal should fail> would have no

     option other than to resort to a nomadic way of life, or

     that, if he were to do so, there were no alternative sites

     for his caravan which were unconstrained by restrictive

     planning policies.  The fact that there may be insufficient

     official local sites is not considered to be relevant in

     this case because is understood to find

     such sites unacceptable.  Furthermore, the District Council

     dispute that their refusal to permit your client to retain

     his caravan at Carisbrook Farm threatened their application

     for designation.  The Secretary of State therefore does not

     consider arguments are of such weight as to

     constitute very special circumstances justifying

     inappropriate development of the Green Belt, and in this

     respect is unable to accept the Inspector's conclusion.

     "... The Secretary of State accepts that the visual impact

     of the caravan on this particular site would be minimal but

     does not consider that this, in itself, is sufficient to

     justify permitting inappropriate development in the Green

     belt."

     The applicant appealed to the High Court against the Secretary

of State's decision.  On 8 October 1993 the Secretary of State's

decision was quashed by consent.

     Following this, the applicant and the District Council, at the

invitation of the Secretary of State, requested that the inquiry be re-

opened.  The Secretary of State appointed a second Inspector to conduct

a local inquiry and report on the merits.  At the inquiry, which was

held over a three day period, the Inspector heard evidence and

representations from the applicant, the District Council, Essex County

Council and various interested parties.  In his report, issued on

24 October 1994, the Inspector found, inter alia, that :

     "... the main consideration in this case is whether there

     are any very special circumstances to justify an exception

     to the strong planning policies designed to resist

     inappropriate development in the Green Belt. ...

     lifestyle was a long way short of nomadic

     even before he moved to the site in 1988.  Consequently,

     although is a Romany gypsy, I do not

     believe that he is, or was at that time, a gypsy as defined

     by the Caravan Sites Act 1968. ...

     ... I do not believe that the

     lifestyle demands any special site provision or other

     special treatment, because neither he nor his immediate

     family are nomadic.  His long term occupation of bungalow-

     type accommodation at Dobbs Weir and at the appeal site

     suggests to me that he does not share the aversion to

     permanent accommodation said to be experienced by some

     gypsies ... I very much doubt that he would return to

     a truly nomadic life if he had to leave the site.

     As for the difficulty of finding other accommodation and

     the possibility of having to go on to the side of the road,

     there is virtually no evidence that has

     made any sustained effort to find another place to live,

     other than at the time of enforcement action, and there are

     very few details of his search at that time.  The fact the

     Council's gypsy site is full does not, in my view,

     demonstrate that he would be unable to find alternative

     accommodation ... His natural preference for staying in his

     local area is, I think, shared by much of the population

     but is not an appropriate reason for overriding Green belt

     policies. ...

     The elected County and District Councils after lengthy

     analysis both consider gypsy site provision in the District

     to be adequate ... even if the count of unauthorised

     gypsy sites did demonstrate a need for 10 to 12 more

     pitches in the District ... that does not seem to me to

     indicate a pressing need sufficient to justify the

     permission for this site in the Green Belt, particularly as

     the appeal site would do little to diminish that total.

     ... the site satisfies some of the County's

     criteria for gypsy sites, being relatively well enclosed,

     a reasonable distance from residential properties, and

     within reach of social and educational facilities ... the

     mobile home and caravans do have the effect of

     consolidating the existing range of structures. ...  The

     overall impact of the development would in my view be

     harmful rather than beneficial to the character of the

     Green belt."

     The Inspector concluded by recommending that the appeal be

dismissed.

     The Secretary of State dismissed the applicant's appeal on

12 January 1995, giving as his reasons the following :

     " takes the view that the

     determining issue in this appeal is whether your client has

     demonstrated that very special circumstances exist which

     are sufficient to override the strong presumption against

     development which would be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

     puts forward three reasons for special

     treatment : his gypsy status, the shortage of suitable

     gypsy sites in the area, and the suitability of the appeal

     site for gypsy use.

     With regard to status, the Secretary of

     State is mindful that Circular 1/94 withdraws the previous

     guidance indicating that it may be necessary to accept

     gypsy sites in protected areas, including Green Belts.

     Consequently he takes the view that a gypsy has no more

     cause than a non-gypsy to expect permission for

     inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Therefore,

     whilst seeing no reason to disagree with the second

     inspector's arguments for concluding that your client is

     not a "gypsy" as defined by section 16 of the Caravan Sites

     Act 1968 ... the Secretary of State does not consider that

     your client's status is a determining issue.

     second Inspector> that the need for more gypsy sites in the

     area is not so pressing as to justify a permission for

     inappropriate development, particularly since the appeal

     site would do little to reduce any shortfall in the number

     of pitches ... and disagrees with the first Inspector's

     view that situation, should he be forced

     to abandon the appeal site, would in itself represent

     special circumstances which would justify permitting this

     form of development in the Green Belt.

     As far as the suitability of the appeal site for gypsy

     occupation is concerned, the Secretary of State agrees with

     the second Inspector ... that the overall impact of the

     development would be more harmful than beneficial to the

     character of the Green Belt ... whilst any harmful

     visual impact may be no more than minimal ... neither

     Inspector found that the development would be positively

     beneficial.  He therefore agrees with the second Inspector

     that the site characteristics themselves cannot be regarded

     as special circumstances in favour of the development. ...

     In considering the weight of harm in this case, the

     Secretary of State has had regard to the purpose of Green

     Belts as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, the

     fundamental consideration being the preservation of their

     openness.  Whilst acknowledging that the scale and adverse

     visual impact of the appeal development are limited, he

     takes the view that the circumstances adduced in favour of

     the development do not outweigh the harm that it would

     cause to the purposes and character of the Green Belt.  He

     therefore concludes that the very special circumstances

     necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green

     Belt have not been demonstrated."

     The applicant appealed to the High Court against the Secretary

of State's decision.  The appeal was dismissed on 21 September 1995.

Pending the outcome of the present proceedings before the Commission,

the District Council has agreed to suspend taking enforcement action.

B.   Relevant domestic law and practice

     The following statements of planning policy issued at central and

local government level are material to the present application.

     Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, issued by the Department of the

Environment, outlines general policy for local planning authorities

with regard to development within areas of green belt.  Insofar as

material, Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 provides:

     "... inside a Green Belt approval should not be given

     except in very special circumstances for the construction

     of a new building or for the change of use of existing

     buildings for purposes other than agricultural, forestry,

     outdoor sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in

     extensive grounds or other use as appropriate to a rural

     area."

     Circular 28/77, issued by the Department of the Environment on

25 March 1977, was intended to provide local planning authorities with

guidance on site provision for gypsies.  Insofar as material,

Circular 28/77 provided :

     "here are areas of open land (including Green Belts ...)

     where the land use policies which apply are severely

     restrictive to development.  It may be necessary, however,

     to accept the establishment of Gypsy sites in such areas

     ... otherwise ... it may be difficult to prevent

     unauthorised camping in far less suitable locations. ...

     here will clearly be a special obligation to

     ensure that arguments in favour of a departure from the

     development plan are convincing."

     Circular 28/77 was superseded by Circular 1/94 which was issued

by the Department of the Environment on 23 November 1994.  Insofar as

material, Circular 1/94 provides :

     "As a rule it will not be appropriate to make provision for

     Gypsy sites in areas of open land where development is

     severely restricted .... Gypsy sites are not regarded as

     among those uses of land that are normally appropriate in

     Green Belts. Green Belt should not be allocated for Gypsy

     sites in development plans."

     Policy H12, sets out Epping District Council's policy with regard

to the provision of gypsy sites within the local development plan.  So

far as relevant, Policy H12 states that "planning permission will not

be granted for a Gypsy caravan site within the local area."

COMPLAINTS

1.   The applicant complains that he is prohibited from living in a

caravan on his own land and as such is prevented from following the

traditional lifestyle of a gypsy.  The applicant points to the

shortfall of gypsy accommodation within the local area and submits that

in the event that he is prevented from remaining in his caravan he will

be unable to accommodate himself legally elsewhere within the area.

The applicant complains that inadequate regard was given to his

identity and status as a gypsy.  The applicant points to the fact that

the relevant planning legislation did not require that particular

consideration be given to the provision of residential sites for

gypsies within the green belt.  The applicant complains that the

refusal to grant planning permission amounted, in these circumstances,

to an interference with his right to respect for his home, and his

private and family life under Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention which

is not justified under the terms of para. 2 thereof.

2.   The Applicant claims that he has been subject to discrimination

on the ground of his status as a gypsy, contrary to Article 14 of the

Convention taken together with Article 8 thereof.  The applicant

complains that the Epping District Council Local Policy H12 and the

Department of the Environment Circular 1/94 directly stigmatise and

discriminate against the provision of housing for gypsy communities

within the green belt.  The applicant complains generally that he has

been treated differently from the house dwelling community who are

afforded a better opportunity to provide for their housing needs in

that they are catered for by the provision of new houses in the green

belt area.

3.   The applicant complains that the refusal of planning permission

amounts to an interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful

enjoyment of his property which is not justified by any legitimate

public interest in breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1.

4.   The applicant complains that in the determination of his right

to live in a caravan on his land he has been deprived of a hearing

before an independent and impartial tribunal in breach of Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention.  The applicant points to the fact it is the

Secretary of State who adjudicates on the planning appeal.  The

applicant submits that the Secretary of State, as a member of the

executive, is not an independent and impartial tribunal within the

meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains that he is prevented from living in a

caravan on his own land and following the traditional lifestyle of a

gypsy.  The applicant complains that there is a shortfall of gypsy

accommodation within the local area and, therefore, that in the event

he is prevented from remaining in his caravan he will be unable to

accommodate himself legally elsewhere within the area. The applicant

complains that in the determination of his right to live in a caravan

on his land inadequate regard was given to his identity and status as

a gypsy.  The applicant complains of an interference with the right to

respect for his home, and his private and family life under Article 8

para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention which is not justified under the

terms of para. 2 thereof.  Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention,

insofar as material, provides :

     "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

     family life, his home ...

     2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority

     with the exercise of this right except such as is in

     accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic

     society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of

     others."

     The Commission recalls that the applicant was refused planning

permission which would have enabled him to live with his family in his

caravans on his land.  Whilst no enforcement action has yet been taken

by the District Council to remove the caravans, the Commission accepts

that in the absence of any undertaking by the District Council to the

contrary this will be the inevitable consequence of the refusal of

planning permission.  Accordingly, the Commission finds that in the

circumstances of the present case there has been an interference by a

public authority with the applicant's right to respect for his home

(see Eur. Court HR, Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgement of

24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 19, para. 47 and Buckley v. the

United Kingdom judgement of 25 September 1996, to be reported in

Reports 1996, paras. 52-55).

     The Commission has, therefore, to consider whether the

interference with the applicant's right to respect for his home is

justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) as being in accordance

with law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of one

or more of the legitimate aims identified in Article 8 para. 2

(Art. 8-2).  The Commission does not, however, consider it necessary,

in light of its finding that the refusal of planning permission amounts

to an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his home,

to decide whether the present case also raises any issue concerning

interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and

family life (cf Eur. Court HR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, loc.

cit., para. 55).

     In determining whether the interference was necessary in a

democratic society, the Commission recalls that as a general rule it

is first for national authorities to assess the necessity for any

interference both in respect of the legislative framework and the

measure of implementation (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR,

Leander v. Sweden judgement of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25,

para. 59).  The Commission further recalls the margin of appreciation

accorded to national authorities in the sphere of planning control in

the exercise of discretionary judgement inherent in the implementation

of policies adopted in the interests of the community as a whole  (see,

mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Klass and Others v. Germany judgement

of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 23, para. 49 and Buckley v.

the United Kingdom, loc. cit., para. 75).

     Nonetheless, whilst it is not the Commission's task to sit in

appeal on the merits of the decision, any decision which has the effect

of interfering with a right protected under the Convention remains

subject to review for conformity with the Convention.  Although the

applicant's right to respect for his home has to be balanced against

the wider interests of the local community in effective planning

controls aimed at protecting the environment and public amenity, the

consequences for the individual in the event that he is prevented from

living on his land are of particular importance in defining where the

permissible boundaries of the margin of appreciation lie (see Eur.

Court HR, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, loc. cit., paras. 74 and 76).

In circumstances where the applicant's lifestyle is essentially

nomadic, the Commission considers that if the relevant planning

authorities have made no finding that there is available to the

applicant an alternative site to which he can reasonably be expected

to move, there must exist particularly compelling reasons to justify

the resulting level of interference with the applicant's right to

respect for his home if the State is to remain within its margin of

appreciation.

     Furthermore, where a discretion capable of interfering with the

enjoyment of a Convention right is conferred on national authorities,

the Commission recalls that the procedural safeguards available to the

individual will be especially material in determining whether a State

has remained within its margin of appreciation.  In particular, the

decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be

fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to

the individual by Article 8 (Art. 8) (see Eur. Court HR, McMichael v.

the United Kingdom judgement of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B,

p. 55, para. 87 and Buckley v. the United Kingdom, loc. cit.,

para. 76).

     In the present case, the Commission recalls that in dismissing

the applicant's appeal against the refusal of planning permission, the

Secretary of State, who considered the findings made by the two

Inspectors, made no finding that there were any alternative sites

available to the applicant.  Whilst noting the shortfall in the

provision of gypsy caravan sites within the local area, the Secretary

of State considered that the " position, should he be

forced to abandon the appeal site, would in itself represent

special circumstances which could justify permitting this form of

development in the green belt".

     The Commission recalls, however, that the first Inspector did not

consider the applicant currently to enjoy the status of a gypsy; and

that the second Inspector, who considered the applicant's lifestyle was

a long way short of nomadic even before he moved to the site in 1988,

and that his occupation of bungalow type accommodation at Dobbs Weir

and the present site did not suggest that he shared an aversion to

permanent accommodation said to be experienced by some gypsies, found

that the applicant's lifestyle was not such as to require any special

site provision or treatment.

     The Commission also recalls that the applicant's site is on land

forming part of the local green belt and that its use is therefore

subject to particular control under the relevant planning legislation

and policy.  Whilst the applicant's use of the site was considered to

have minimal visual impact on the surrounding countryside and, before

the applicant had purchased it, the site had been subject to a degree

of development in that various nissen huts and corrugated blockwork and

wooden sheds had been put up on the land, the Commission acknowledges

that the relevant planning authorities had to balance the applicant's

right to respect for his home against the interests of the local

community in effective planning controls aimed at maintaining the

openness of the countryside and protecting it from further

encroachment.

     The Commission further recalls the finding of the second

Inspector that there was virtually no evidence that the applicant,

during his occupancy of the site, had made any sustained effort to find

alternative accommodation.  In this regard, the Commission notes that

the relevant planning authorities had consistently resisted the

applicant's use of the land as a site for his mobile home and that at

no stage during his occupancy of the site could the applicant be said

to have laboured under the assumption that he would be allowed to use

the land for that purpose.

     The Commission does not consider that 1) the fact that the site

was within the green belt, having regard to the fact that the site was

considered to have minimal visual impact on the surrounding countryside

and had in any event already been subject to a degree of development,

and 2) the finding of the second inspector that there was little

evidence that the applicant had himself made any sustained effort to

find an alternative site, having regard to the fact that the local

authority was unable to provide or even identify a suitable,

alternative site, would have amounted to sufficient reasons had the

applicant been found to be following an essentially nomadic lifestyle.

However, in light of the first Inspector's finding that the applicant

was not currently of nomadic habit and, more particularly, the finding

of the second Inspector that the applicant's lifestyle was a long way

short of nomadic even before he moved to the site in 1988 and was not

such as to require any special site provision or treatment, the

Commission considers that the reasons given were, in the circumstances

of the present case, sufficient to justify the resulting interference

with the applicant's right to respect for his home such that the

respondent State remained within its margin of appreciation.

     Recalling the decision of the Court in Buckley v. the United

Kingdom (loc. cit., para. 79), the Commission notes that the decision-

making process enabled the applicant to appeal to the Secretary of

State, and that the appeal procedure involved an assessment by two

qualified, independent experts, to whom the applicant was entitled to

make representations.  The Commission notes that a subsequent appeal

to the High Court was also available to the applicant which enabled him

to challenge the legality, propriety and fairness of the decision

making procedure.  The Commission is therefore satisfied that the

procedural safeguards were also such as to afford due respect to the

applicant's interests under Article 8 (Art. 8).

     Accordingly, the Commission considers that in the circumstances

of the present case the national authorities did not exceed the margin

of appreciation accorded to them.  In conclusion, there has been no

violation of Article 8 (Art. 8).

     It follows, therefore, that this part of the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.   The applicant claims to be a victim of discrimination on the

ground of his status as a gypsy contrary to Article 14 of the

Convention taken together with Article 8 (Art. 14+8).  The applicant

complains that the Epping District Council Local Policy H12 and the

Department of the Environment Circular 1/94 directly stigmatise and

discriminate against the provision of housing for Gypsy communities

within the green belt.  The applicant complains generally that he has

been treated differently from the house dwelling community who are

catered for by the provision of new houses in green belt areas.

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides :

     "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the

     Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any

     ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,

     political or other opinion, national or social origin,

     association with a national minority, property, birth or

     other status."

     The Commission recalls that the District Council's stated

planning policy under Policy H12 was that "planning permission will not

be granted for a gypsy caravan site within the local area".

     In the event that this policy had been determinative of the

applicant's appeal against the refusal of planning permission, the

Commission considers that this may have raised an issue under

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.  The Commission recalls,

however, that it is not its role to review national legislation in the

abstract, but to consider the specific issues raised in the case before

it (see Eur. Court HR, Bellet v. France judgment of 4 December 1995,

Series A no. 333-B, p. 42, para. 34).

     The Commission recalls that before the relevant planning

authorities the decisive issue was whether, consistent with Planning

Policy Guidance Note 2, there were very special circumstance to justify

inappropriate development within the green belt.  The Commission finds

no evidence that Policy H12 was a determining issue in the refusal of

planning permission and, therefore, that the applicant can in the

result be said to have been directly affected by the measure in

question.

     Under Circular 1/94, which was current at the time of the re-

opened inquiry, the Commission recalls that local planning authorities

were advised that gypsy sites were not to be regarded as among those

uses of land normally appropriate within a green belt.  The Commission

recalls that under Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, which is of

universal application and, as noted above, was applied in the present

case, the uses of land identified as being appropriate in a green belt

were use for the purpose of "agriculture, forestry, outdoor sport,

cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds or other use as

appropriate to a rural area".  Having regard to the uses of land

identified as appropriate to the green belt, the Commission does not,

therefore, find that the house dwelling community were conferred any

material advantage, or that the applicant was at a material

disadvantage by reason of his status as a gypsy under the terms of the

relevant planning policy in seeking to live within the green belt.

     Furthermore the Commission finds no evidence in the present case

to substantiate the applicant's general complaint that the house

dwelling community receive more favourable treatment in the provision

of new housing within the green belt.

     Accordingly, the Commission finds that the applicant in seeking

to establish his home within the green belt was not subject to

discrimination by reason of his status as a gypsy contrary to

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

     It follows, therefore, that this part of the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.   The applicant complains that the refusal of planning permission

amounts to an interference with the his right to the peaceful enjoyment

of his property which is not justified by any legitimate public

interest.  Article 1 of Protocol 1 (P1-1) provides, insofar as

relevant, that:

     "Every  natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

     enjoyment of his possessions. ...

     The proceeding provisions shall not in any way impair the

     right of the State to enforce such laws as it seems

     necessary to control the use of property in accordance with

     the general interest ..."

     The Commission recalls its findings with respect to the

applicant's complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.  The

Commission does not consider that in the circumstances of the present

case any separate issue arises under Article 1 of Protocol 1 (P1-1)

and therefore the Commission, having regard to its reasoning, finds no

violation of this provision.

     It follows, therefore, that this part of the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4.   The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention in that in the determination of his right

to live in a caravan on his land he has been deprived of a fair hearing

by an independent and impartial tribunal.  The applicant points to the

fact that the planning appeal is determined by the Secretary of State

who, as a member of the executive, does not have the characteristics

of an independent and impartial tribunal.  Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides :

     "In the determination of his civil rights ... everyone is

     entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent

     and impartial tribunal established by law."

     Recalling the decision of the Court in Bryan v. the United

Kingdom (judgement of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335, pp. 13-18,

paras. 30-47) where the same point was raised, the Commission considers

that the scope of the review of the planning decision available to the

applicant on appeal to the High Court, which enabled the applicant,

inter alia, to challenge any decision or finding of the Secretary of

State as being perverse or irrational; or any decision or finding of

the Inspector as having no basis in evidence or as having been made by

reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors,

was sufficient to comply with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

     It follows, therefore, that this part of the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                 J. LIDDY

     Secretary                                    President

to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber