The London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) allocates social housing in accordance with an Allocations Policy from 2016. Under that Policy, applicants for social housing are placed into Bands (A, B, C or D) according to priority for social housing which they have under the policy. Obviously a person in Band A has a better chance of being allocated housing than a person in Band B and so on.
See our report of the First Tier Tribunal judgment below.
The park owners took possession action against the defendants. They argued that, since the park involved mixed residential and holiday use, it was not protected by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. A holiday site is outside the protection of the Act.
Davies v Hertfordshire CC  WLR(D) 1411, is not a Traveller case but is a useful reminder that, even where there is no security of tenure, a public law defence can be put forward to a possession action (in this case concerning Children Act 2004 section 11).
Connors & ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG); Mulvenna & Smith v SSCLG  EWCA Civ 1850, 17 November 2017.
The case of Mulvenna and Smith concerned the discriminatory decision by Eric Pickles, back in 2014 when he was SSCLG, to recover their respective planning appeals for his own determination. Having done so Mr Pickles rejected his Planning Inspector’s recommendation in each case that planning permission be granted and he dismissed both appeals.
John Romans Parks Homes Limited v Hancock CH1/19UM/PHC/2017/0002
This was a First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber case. In August 2003 Mr and Mrs Hancock sold their bungalow and purchased their mobile home at the Morn Gate Park Site in Dorchester. John Romans Limited purchased the park from A & M Properties Limited in May 2015. John Romans Limited sought to evict Mr and Mrs Hancock from the park simply by serving them with notice to leave.
PLA v Mendoza  UKUT 146 (TCC), 24 November 2016.
The boat in question in this case was called the Wight Queen and was moored without engine or wheelhouse on the North bank of the Thames not far from Kew Bridge. It was owned and lived in by Mr Mendoza. On 16 November 2009 the Port of London Authority (PLA) applied to the Land Registry for first registration of its title to part of the bed and foreshore of the River Thames between Kew Bridge and Brentford Ait.
We reported on our website the case of Wenman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 925 (Admin), 21 April 2015:-
R (Jayes) -v- Flintshire CC and Hamilton (interested party)  EWHC 874 (Admin) 13
Mr Hamilton obtained planning permission for a Gypsy site for a temporary period of not more than 5 years. A neighbouring objector challenged this on several grounds. Before C.M.G. Ockelton (sitting as a deputy high court judge), Mr Jayes was successful on his first ground and the Planning Inspector’s decision was quashed.
Dartford Borough Council -v- SSCLG  EWCA Civ 141, 14 March 2017
The sole issue on this appeal was the meaning of “previously developed land” (often called “Brownfield land”) as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The definition in NPPF reads as follows:-