Search
document

Document text Analytics

DRAKE v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11748/85 • ECHR ID: 001-212

Document date: May 9, 1988

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

DRAKE v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11748/85 • ECHR ID: 001-212

Document date: May 9, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 11748/85

by Richard DRAKE

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

9 May 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 June 1985 by

Richard Drake against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 August

1985 under file No. 11748/85;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1924 and resident

at "Leeteens", Serpentine Road, Stratton Strawless, Norfolk. The

applicant is represented by Mr. Jarvis, a solicitor practising in

Norwich.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows:

In 1967, the applicant's wife bought half an acre of land

known as "Leeteens", Serpentine Road, Stratton Strawless. The land

was transferred into the applicant's name in 1969. The land had

previously been occupied by an old railway carriage and there was a

brick toilet from previous occupation.

The applicant and his family, who are gypsies, moved onto

"Leeteens" in two caravans and began to conduct a scrapmetal and car

repairing business.

From 1969, a series of enforcement notices were served on the

applicant by the local district council in relation to his user of the

land. The district council involved was initially St. Faiths and

Aylsham Rural District Council. After three enforcement notices

served on the applicant in 1969, this council took no further steps,

apparently as a result of the Caravan Act 1968 which required local

authorities to provide sites for gypsies, none of which existed at the

time in the area.

After a local re-organisation in 1974, St. Faiths was

succeeded by Broadland District Council which recommenced action

against unauthorised developments in the area and purported to adopt

a policy of preventing the sporadic encroachment of development in a

rural area not classified as a settlement area. The applicant and his

wife were convicted and fined six times between 1975-1980 for planning

offences.

The applicant made numerous applications for planning

permission, which were refused.

Proceedings were also taken in relation to the use of

"Leeteens" for scrap business. An enforcement notice was served on

the applicant on 4 November 1977, alleging the business constituted an

unauthorised material change of user.

On appeal, the planning inspector upheld the enforcement

notice and in his decision of 21 July 1978 held that the scrapyard was

of serious detriment to local amenity.

In December 1980, the district council decided to seek an

injunction to restrain the use of caravans at "Leeteens". These

proceedings were adjourned pending the applicant's application for

planning permission for these caravans. Application had been made on

13 November 1981 and on 10 November 1982, the inspector held that the

applicant's occupation of the site was of harmful nature to an

otherwise pleasant area and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Injunction proceedings were later re-instituted and on

8 March 1985, an injunction was granted to the district council

restraining the applicant from using the land to station caravans or

to repair or store motor vehicles. The council was ordered not to

take steps to enforce the injunction until 9 September 1985. The

applicant was advised by counsel that an appeal against the injunction

would have been to no avail.

On 29 January 1986, the applicant applied again for planning

permission for a bungalow. Planning permission was refused on

18 March 1986: the reason given was that the policy is to limit

housing development within towns and villages, save where the

development is essential to agriculture or where there is expansion

of an existing structure.

Broadland District Council passed a resolution however

not to continue High Court proceedings against the applicant for his

refusal to obey an injunction. By letter of 4 April 1986, they

proposed granting to the applicant temporary consent of ten years for

the use of three caravans on his land.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he has been discriminated against

by the district council because he is a gypsy. He submits that others

in the surrounding area have been granted planning permission for

bungalows, scrapyards and caravans despite the policy against

development invoked against his user of his land in the

above-mentioned proceedings.

The applicant therefore invokes Article 14 of the Convention

in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 12 June 1985 and registered

on 20 August 1985.

The Commission decided on 13 October 1986 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them

to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

Observations of the respondent Government were submitted on

6 January 1987. By letter dated 16 July 1987, the applicant's

solicitor informed the Secretariat that the applicant had been granted

planning permission for three caravans for ten years. By letter dated

21 March 1988, the applicant's solicitor stated that the application

could be treated as abandoned and by letter dated 30 March 1988

confirmed that the applicant wished to withdraw his application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that in view of the decision of the

district council to grant planning permission the applicant wishes to

withdraw his application. The Commission considers that there are no

reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention which necessitate a further examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant