R (McDonagh) v Hackney LBC , Administrative Court, February 15, 2012 [not on bailii – taken from a Lawtel note] concerned a claim for judicial review brought by a traveller against Hackney’s policy regarding the allocation of its caravan pitches for travellers.
In June 2011, there were only 27 residential caravan pitches within Hackney and only 456 residential sites in London as a whole [not included in the Lawtel note, but reported in The Guardian last summer]. While it is not clear from the Lawtel note, I do not think I would be wrong in presuming that demand for the pitches far outnumbered their supply and there was plainly a lengthy waiting list.
To get onto the waiting list Hackney’s policy required applicants to demonstrate, through the provision of documentary evidence, that they lived in Hackney or had a connection to the area. Applicants were also required to re-register every year, which included supplying documentary evidence of their address. A failure to re-register resulted in applicants being removed from the waiting list.
The claimant traveller sought judicial review of the policy and contended that it was irrational because the requirement to have a local connection to Hackney and re-register annually was unduly burdensome for travellers.
The Administrative Court dismissed the claim for judicial review. There was nothing irrational in either requirement. An authority was entitled to ration a scarce resource by limiting it to people who had a connection to Hackney and it was necessary for applicants to re-register annually so that Hackney could be satisfied that such people still had a local connection to Hackney. In cases involving a scarce resource it was inevitable that there would be competing interests and a policy would always have its advantages and disadvantages.
Comment
The fact that there are insufficient sites for travellers is well documented. As is the continual failure of central or local government to do anything about it. Against that backdrop, I don’t think anyone can argue against local authorities operating allocation policies to ensure that those sites that do become available are allocated to travellers transparently. However, I would also have thought that it is equally important for such policies to be framed so as not to disadvantage the very people the scheme is designed to help.
Therefore I am not very surprised that this policy was attacked as being irrational. It is clearly arguable that it cannot be rational for a policy to require travellers to reside permanently in Hackney until they are allocated a pitch. This would appear wholly at odds with living a nomadic way of life. Rather than promoting the cultural lifestyle of travellers this policy appears to curtail it.
However, one must not forget the current plight of many travellers; the lack of sites means that the majority of travellers are no longer able to live a nomadic lifestyle and many are forced to either live permanently on sites or, in the worst case scenario, live in houses. Against that background, I do not think that it is unreasonable for authorities to prioritise pitches for those people who are living in their area and who want to live in a caravan but are unable to do so. Their children are likely to be attending schools in the area and it does not seem perverse that those people should be given priority above those who are not.
Clearly the answer is for more sites, but until then I do not think that an authority can really be criticised for accommodating those travellers who live in their area, especially if they are being forced to live in houses rather than caravans.