Chapman v the United Kingdom (Application no. 27238/95) (2001) 33 EHRR 18
The point in plain English: Planning controls which interfere with a Gypsy or Traveller household’s home and way of life engage Article 8. The particular interference in Chapman was nevertheless held proportionate, and the European Court found no violation.
What the Grand Chamber decided
Mrs Chapman lived with her family in caravans on her own Green Belt land without planning permission. Repeated planning refusals and enforcement action interfered with her home, private life and traditional Gypsy way of life.
The Court accepted that Article 8 was engaged and recognised the vulnerable position of Gypsies as a minority whose identity and way of life deserved special consideration. It nevertheless held, by a majority, that the planning measures pursued legitimate environmental aims and fell within the United Kingdom’s margin of appreciation. There was no violation of Article 8, Article 14, Article 6 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Important current context
The domestic planning policies and statutory background described in the 2001 judgment have changed substantially. Chapman remains an important human-rights authority, but current Gypsy and Traveller policy, equality duties and the facts of the individual household must be considered under today’s law and policy.
See Planning Geek’s guide to human rights and planning enforcement.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.