Enforcement of planning restrictions against unlawfully sited caravans was justified under the Convention in the interests of public order and the rights of others
An inspector was precluded by Articles 8 and 14 from taking into account a refusal by a gypsy of conventional housing as a reason for refusing planning permission
A decision not to stay an injunction to remove travellers from land which they owned, but which they were occupying in breach of planning law, pending the determination of a planning application was not disproportionate and the interference with their Article 8 rights was justified.
The council's offer of traditional "bricks and mortar" accommodation to homeless gypsies instead of the caravan sites they had demanded was not a violation of their rights under Articles 8 or 14.
The eviction of a licensee and his family from the local authority gypsy caravan site was a breach of their Article 8 right to respect for private and family life. The applicable legal framework did not provide sufficient procedural protection of their rights.
Decisions on planning merits were for the planning authorities and decisions on whether to enforce such decisions were for the courts, particularly where human rights consequences were concerned.
In a planning appeal pertaining to a grant of planning permission in a green belt area the gypsy status of the applicant could not be determinative of the issue.
Claims by a gypsy who had been refused permission to site her caravans in a green belt area that this refusal breached her rights under Articles 8 and 14 rejected as manifestly ill-founded
Once a local authority and a contractual and proprietary right to possession of a property, an Article 8 defence could only apply in exceptional cases. Lower courts must follow binding domestic precedent and not apparently inconsistent authority from the European Court of Human Rights
In confirming a compulsory purchase order, the Secretary of State did not need to consider afresh the possible future impact of the CPO on the resident's Article 8 rights
The court considering whether to grant an injunction to restrain a breach of planning control had to reach a just and proportionate decision which took account of any personal hardship which would result.
A planning inspector's conclusion that the personal hardship of a gypsy applying for planning permission should supersede normal planning considerations was unlawful
In accordance with the principle of legal certainty, the Court of Appeal had to follow the House of Lords ruling in Qazieven though that decision was incompatible with the Strasbourg decision in Connors. Consequently the appellants were not entitled to rely on Article 8 as a defence to an action for possession of local authority land which they occupied without consent.
The planning restrictions which prevented gypsies from moving caravans and building dwellings on land for which no permission had been granted did indirectly discriminate against them under Article 14, but such discrimination could be objectively justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the environment and was not therefore incompatible with the Convention.
