Considers the implications of "South Bucks DC v Porter" ([2003] UKHL 26, Abs66831) ("Porter 1") and "South Bucks DC v Porter" ([2004] UKHL 33, Abs68049) ("Porter 2") for planning law and practice. "South Bucks DC v Porter" is the latest in a long series of planning cases brought in the domestic courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights by English gypsies and travellers who are unable to site their mobile homes on land in their possession. HL contended in "Porter 1" that the grant of an injunction and a planning determination should be seen as independent. In "Porter 2" HL upheld that personal circumstances can constitute material considerations in planning law. Concludes that after "Porter 2" the view that town and country planning is about the use of land with people seen not as bearers of fundamental rights but simply as users of land, can be suspended once failures in social policy begin to threaten human rights.