Court rejects gypsy eviction bid

A council has lost its legal battle to evict a gypsy couple and their daughter who suffers from a brain disorder.

Cambridgeshire gypsies Archie and Julie Brown decided they had to settle down after daughter, Kelly Marie, was born in 1996 suffering from microcephaly

They settled on a plot of land at at The Arches, Schole Road, Willingham.

A government planning inspector gave permission but South Cambridgeshire Council fought and lost the case at the Appeal Court.

The Browns, traditional gypsies based in south Cambridgeshire, abandoned their travelling life to give Kelly Marie, their third child, access to specialist care and a local special school.

Kelly Marie, now 11, was not expected to live more than a few weeks, but has survived with special medical assistance and care.

'Exceptional needs'

In April 2006, government planning inspector, Lucy Drake, granted Mr and Mrs Brown "personal" planning permission to occupy the site.

Although she accepted the family's presence would "harm the character and appearance" of the area, she ruled Kelly Marie's exceptional needs outweighed the planning objections and said the family could stay for as long as they wished, although the land would have to be restored to its previous condition if they left.

South Cambridgeshire District Council challenged Ms Drake's ruling at the High Court and a final decision was made at the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, sitting with Sir Robin Auld and Sir Mark Potter, rejected the council's arguments that it was for Mr and Mrs Brown to prove that there were no alternative gypsy sites available in the area where Kelly Marie's needs could be met.

'Disappointed with result'

The judge said the case was truly exceptional and Ms Drake had concluded that there was a substantial shortfall in authorised gypsy sites in South Cambridgeshire.

The council's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to pay more than £13,000 in legal bills run up by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in defending the inspector's decision.

South Cambridgeshire councillor Nick Wright, portfolio holder for planning, said: "We are very disappointed with this result. This wasn't a case against the individuals concerned, but about a point of law and the way the planning inspector reached her decision.

"Unfortunately, the way in which the planning system works means it is up to individual authorities to challenge these points of law.

"In doing so, we have to carefully balance the possible costs with the interest of safeguarding future planning decisions."