News – Mobile Home Case Law 4

Mobile Home Case Law 4

Green v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 10 February 2010
Subject: Planning; Local government
Keywords: Caravans; Certainty; Local government; Planning conditions; Planning inspectors; Planning permission; Traveller sites
Where Reported: [2010] EWCA Civ 64; [2010] N.P.C. 16; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…transported on a motor vehicle or trailer),shall not be treated as not being (or as not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be so moved on a highway when assembled. (2) For the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 , the expression “caravan” shall not include a structure designed or adapted for human habitation which falls within paragraphs (a) and (b) of the …
…the residentially occupied part of the land be subdivided into more than 3 separate pitches.5) No more than 2 caravans including no more than 1 static caravan shall be stationed on Plot 1; no more than 3 caravans including no more than 2 static caravans shall be stationed on Plot 2; and no more than 3 caravans including no more than 1 static caravan shall be stationed on Plot 3. All of the caravans shall be as defined in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended by Statutory Instrument 2006 No.2374: The Caravans Sites Act 1968 and Social Landlords (Permissible Additional Purposes) (England) Order 2006 (Definition of Caravan) (Amendments) (England) Order 2006 6) No commercial or industrial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of …
…layout of the site including the extent of each of the 3 pitches, the position on each pitch of the caravan bases for static caravans and the position of the touring caravans; associated parking and other hard-surfaced areas; and a scheme for the landscaping of the site which shall include details…
…numbers required should be established early on in the proceedings and likely intention should be clarified. It is stated: “One mobile home and one tourer (often used for sleeping in throughout the year where there is inadequate space in the mobile home) is the normal minimum for a single gypsy family.” Suggested conditions in gypsy permissions in advice produced by the Planning Inspectorate suggests conditions limiting, in several possible ways, the number and type of caravans permitted (paragraphs 8 to 11). The use of the word “pitches” in permissions is also advised. These policy documents are cited with a view to demonstrating the context in which planning permissions for gypsy caravan sites and conditions contained in them should be read. Mr Colville referred to the absence of any definition of the expression “static caravans” in the permission or of the expression “touring caravans”. The condition does not limit the positioning of caravans on that part of the appeal site shown as a vehicle park, as distinct from plots 1, 2 and 3. It was submitted that if a caravan was not “plumbed into” the appeal site it could be argued by a user that it was neither a “static” caravan nor a “touring” caravan so that, as a legitimate intensification of use, a further caravan could lawfully be placed on the plot. Nor did the conditions make clear that the towing caravans contemplated in addition to the static caravans in condition 5, were allowed as ancillary to the static caravans, that is to be used by the same family unit. The appellant’s fear is that the planning permission read with the conditions permits 8 caravans and the number could be increased significantly without breaching planning control unless the character of the use of the site is altered. Mr Forsdick submitted that conditions 4, 5 and 7 must be read together. The “touring caravans” in condition 7(i)(a) are clearly the caravans other than static caravans contemplated in condition 5. Thus there is a total limit of 8 caravans on the 3 pitches, 4 static and 4 touring. The expression “touring caravans” in condition 7 is used in the planning guidance and bears the meaning of a caravan capable of being towed by a bar and hitch. The 3 “plots” in paragraph 49 by the Inspector’s report and …
…Further, the residentially occupied part on the land is to be on the 3 pitches identified and the positioning of caravans on that part of the appeal site proposed for a vehicle park would be contrary to the conditions stipulated. Against the background of planning guidance, the touring caravans mentioned are plainly intended for a use ancillary to the static caravans, that is by the same family which occupies the static caravan. I will not conceal my discomfort in having to construe the conditions creatively, particularly in the absence of any detailed…

 

42.
Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding (Valuation Officer) Court of Appeal, 11 May 1966
Subject: Rates; Real property
Keywords: Caravans; Occupation; Rateable value
Where Reported: [1966] 2 Q.B. 484; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 198; [1966] 3 All E.R. 247; (1966) 130 J.P. 397; 64 L.G.R. 399; 198 E.G. 785; [1966] R.A. 393; [1966] R.V.R. 446; 13 R.R.C. 74; (1966) 110 S.J. 386
Documents: Case Analysis  [1966] 2 Q.B. 484  [1966] 3 W.L.R. 198
Terms in Context:
…Court of Appeal1966-05-11 723 [1966] 2 Q.B. 484 [1966] 3 W.L.R. 198 484 Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. and Others Harding Court of Appeal Lord Denning M.R. Danckwerts and Salmon L.JJ. 1966 May 9, 10, 11 Rating—Rateable occupation—Residential caravans—Caravans on site occupied throughout year—Whether caravan and pitch a rateable hereditament—Whether caravan and pitch one unit of occupation—Measure of control exercised by site operator—Whether site operator or caravan owner in paramount occupation—Whether caravan rateable as chattel. A number of residential caravans with their respective pitches situated on caravan sites were entered as rateable hereditaments in a valuation list. In a typical case, a four-berth caravan, 21ft. by 7ft. 3ins., occupied by the same family throughout the year, was placed on a pitch which was 55ft. by 31ft. The occupier of the caravan put up a fence round the pitch with a gate leading into it. The caravan was on a gravel standing with a concrete path. It was connected for electricity by a switch and with a soakaway system by a pipe which could be screwed on and off. The caravan, which was on wheels, was jacked up by stays to keep it stable, but there was evidence that it was mobile in the sense that it could be quickly towed away in an emergency. The site operators were required by the …
…a slightly different angle or slightly different depth within the pitch and this happened frequently when a new, probably larger, caravan came onto the pitch and occasionally in the course of reorganisation by the operator of his site; only the site operator or a dealer authorised by him was allowed to tow a caravan onto a pitch or alter the position of a caravan already on a pitch. (3) All these activities on caravan sites were carried on by the site operators without asking any leave of the caravan dweller, and by virtue of their ownership of the site. (4) Save in case of emergencies ( e.g ., fire) or when at the request of the caravan dweller the site operator occasionally looked after a caravan while the dweller was 487 away, the site operator did not go into or claim any right to enter the caravans themselves. (5) At Field Place there were three types of caravan pitches, being for residential, static holiday and touring caravans. Some of the static holiday caravans, particularly since the coming into force of the site licence, were removed from their pitches to the car park area for winter storage, while others had remained on the same pitches throughout the year. All the test caravans had in fact so remained from the date of the proposal to the date of hearing. Some caravans, while remaining on the same pitch, had changed ownership more than once in the last few years. (6) Normally pitches of static holiday caravans were paid for in advance for the season, whereas payment for a pitch for a residential caravan was usually on a weekly basis. Holiday caravans were occupied intermittently, and for odd weekends. During the summer many holiday caravan owners would come down say for Whitsun, for a long weekend and for their main fortnight’s holiday. (b) A caravan dweller did not regard himself as having control of his pitch. On the other hand he regarded his caravan entirely as his own and not subject to internal interference by the site operator. (c) All the caravans on all the sites were capable of being moved in themselves, although many of the large single caravans and all the “twin unit” caravans had to be moved upon transporters on the public highway. This was only because of statutory restrictions and not because of the construction of the caravan. When such caravans, even the “twin units,” were assembled on a site they could be and were towed from one part of the …
…M. J. Albery Q.C. and Jeremiah Harman for the appellants. This appeal, raising the question of the rateability of residential caravans, is regarded by the parties as a test case. It concerns a fundamental principle of the law of rating. Mobile caravans have never before been rated. These caravans are mobile and so are chattels. An attempt has been made for the first time to rate, not the site owner, but the owner of the caravan. For rateable occupation there must be a degree of permanence. Permanence is essentially a question of fact. It is the …
…site operator is treated as being the occupier. LORD DENNING M.R. We are here concerned with the rating of residential caravans. In recent years caravan sites have developed greatly. There are two kinds of residential caravans: first, those in which people live permanently. The same family occupies the caravan all through the year. Secondly, those which people use for holidays and weekends. The same family use it year after year. The question is whether such caravans are rateable. I put on one side any caravans which have been on a site for less than a year. They may be too transient to attract rateability. The seven cases with which we are concerned are all cases where caravans were there in 1962 at the time of the provisional list. They had been there for over a year. By now they have been there for several years. A typical case is No. 6, Field Place Caravan Park, which is at New Milton. The caravan in question was a four-berth caravan 21 ft. by 7 ft. 3 ins. It was placed on a pitch which was 55 ft. by 31 ft. The occupier of the caravan put up a chestnut-paling fence round the pitch with a wicket gate leading into it. He mowed the grass and kept the place tidy. The caravan was on a gravel standing with a concrete path leading up to it. It was connected with the electricity by …
…It still had its wheels on. It was 497 jacked up, in this sense, that it had stays on the caravan which would keep it stable. It had not been moved to or from the pitch for quite a long time. But there was evidence that it was mobile, in this sense, that in case of emergency, for instance in the case of fire sweeping through the site, it could be towed away within ten minutes or perhaps half an hour. The first question is whether the caravan, together with the whole of its pitch, is a rateable hereditament. Mr. Albery, who appears for the site operators and also for the caravan dwellers, says that the pitch is rateable, but that the combined thing, the caravan plus the pitch, is not a rateable hereditament. He takes his stand on the point that an occupier is rateable…

 

43.
Pugsley v Secretary of State for the Environment Queen’s Bench Division, 09 May 1996
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravans; Change of use; Planning permission
Where Reported: Unreported
Documents: Case Analysis
Terms in Context:
…PugsleySecretary of State for the Environment PUGSLEY V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Pugsley v North Devon DC …
…09 May 1996Sir Graham Eyre Q.C. Eyre, Sir Graham, QC (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Planning permission Change of use Caravans Planning permission change of use siting of mobile home on concrete base whether or not a caravan P appealed against an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control involving a material change of use of land from agricultural to residential by the siting of a mobile home on a concrete hardstanding and construction of a brick plinth surround and steps. The issue was whether the mobile home constituted operational development which was lawful after four years, or whether it was a caravan under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 s.29(1) and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s.13 which was lawful after 10 years. The concrete foundation had been erected outside the four …
…the unit was capable of being moved from one place to another. P argued that the structure was not a caravan and was not capable of being moved by road as the unit was wider than the single lane track at the site. The Secretary of State argued that the unit was a caravan and stationing it constituted a material change of use and not operational development and that the 10 year rule applied …
…Secretary of State Treasury Solicitor 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 20060525171523 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.29 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.29(1) 1996293538 724…

 

44.
Smith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 24 November 2000
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Change of use; Conditions; Planning permission
Where Reported: Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…at page 43 of the bundle. The permission was for: “Continued use of land as a site for 30 seasonal caravans. Land adjacent to the Barley Mow Public House, Eastbourne Road, Uckfield.” There were conditions to the permission. The crucial condition is condition no. 9 which reads: “The use of the site for caravan camping purposes shall be restricted to the period 1st April to 31st October inclusive in each year.” And the reason for that is: “The District Planning Authority do not consider that caravans are suitable dwelling units for permanent occupation.” It is worth noting that two of the other conditions refer to the …
…same general area of concern: condition no. 5: “The permission is limited to the use of the land as a caravan camping site only.” And condition no. 7: “The use of the site shall be limited to mobile caravans only. For this purpose ‘mobile caravans’ means trailer caravans specially designed and constructed and drawing by private cars and motoring caravans in full mechanical running order, in all cases complying with the Ministry of Transport Acts and Regulations.” The district council …
…under S177(5) of the amended Act, for the continued use of the land as a site for 30 seasonal caravans without complying with condition No. 9 attached to the planning permission No. WD/80/3372 dated 15 January 1981 granted …
…for the purposes of the 1990 Act and the question of the use of so called holiday houses, chalets or caravans as permanent residential accommodation. The appellant pointed out that the mobile homes on this site were, to all intents and purposes, single dwellings and the imposition of any condition on the …
…respect of this field is contained in the Local Plan Policy TM5 and DC22. TM5 states: “Proposals for new static caravan sites for holiday purposes, or the change of use of touring pitches to static pitches, will not be permitted.” Paragraph 8 continues: “DC22 indicates that residential mobile homes, including caravans, will not be permitted in the countryside unless they are on a temporary basis and related to an agricultural need…

 

45.
R. (on the application of Jackson) v First Secretary of State Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 26 November 2004
Subject: Planning
Where Reported: [2004] EWHC 2825 (Admin); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…paragraph 9 of the decision letter the Inspector said this: “In my view, the rectangular shape of a 30ft long caravan would spoil the scenic quality of this setting, especially as the caravan proposed would be finished in cream and light green. I note the appellant has said the caravan is only needed if there were a permanent dwelling under way and would be limited to a twelve-month duration …
…unduly precious about matters of design. Read literally, the suggestion could not have been intended to be taken seriously. Modern caravans are not constructed with feather edge board cladding. Mr Grant submitted that the Inspector should have understood the claimant’s observations as being a suggestion that a feather edge board fence could have been erected around the caravan. It will be remembered that planning permission was sought for the siting of a caravan. The second defendant asked for further details in a letter dated 19th August 2003. That letter requested information about the external appearance — colour, type of mobile home to be used, et cetera. The response from the claimant to this request for further particulars was: “The proposed caravan would be conventional ie rectangular with a flat roof. Dimensions: 9m × 3m × 3m. Colour: Cream and light green.” A number of other particulars were provided and the letter concluded by saying: “Please NB the siting of the proposed caravan does not necessitate any construction work.” The grounds of appeal against the refusal of planning permission were very lengthy indeed …
…was submitted that the Inspector erred in paragraph 9 of the decision letter in proceeding upon the premise that the caravan was needed only during the construction of a permanent building: “I note the appellant has said the caravan is only needed if there were a permanent dwelling under way and would be limited to a twelve-month duration.” [ Emphasis added.] It was submitted that this was a misunderstanding because there was an immediate need for the caravan which would continue to exist until such time as planning permission had been obtained for a permanent dwelling and the …
…claimant was taking issue with part of the second defendant’s site description which had said that there was already a “mobile home” on the site. The thrust of the points being made by the claimant was that the so-called “mobile home” was in fact a small touring caravan. There can be no doubt that both in the terms of the application for planning permission and in the correspondence with the second defendant giving further particulars the claimant was saying that the caravan was needed for a temporary period which he estimated to be a year. The application form sought permission for “siting of 30-foot × 10 caravan for residential use (temporary until house is built)”. The second defendant’s letter of 19th August says this in part: “I note that the application is for the siting of a 30ft × 10ft caravan for temporary residential use whilst the fishery worker’s dwelling is under construction. I would be grateful if you could provide …
…the Inspector was not persuaded that the need (whatever it was) justified a grant of planning permission for stationing a caravan on this site within the farm for a relatively short period, 12 months. If he had realised that it was proposed to site the caravan for a longer period the Inspector would have been less, not more, likely to have granted planning permission. He gave…

 

46.
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Smith Queen’s Bench Division, 23 October 2009
Subject: Planning; Local government
Keywords: Agricultural land; Caravans; Gypsies; Injunctions; Planning control; Residential development; Traveller sites
Where Reported: [2009] EWHC 2615 (QB); [2009] N.P.C. 123; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…it. That order was served at 11 pm on 4 September 2009 when two council officers entered the land. No caravans, mobile homes or people were present. Three copies of the order were displayed on site, one on a stake hammered into …
…or until the court so ordered, they were forbidden to use any part of the land for the siting of caravans/mobile homes or from using it for residential development, specifically including both the occupation of caravans or mobile homes, the storage of vehicles and caravans and residential paraphernalia.Whilst Mr Justice Tomlinson was prepared to give the defendants the benefit of the doubt in the …
…council had, with commendable speed and foresight, obtained an injunction before the defendants entered onto the land and placed their caravan/mobile homes there. I have already found that the defendants knew both that they were acting in breach of planning conditions …
…Borough had been visited and surveyed to ascertain the types and amount of accommodation and that a total of 167 caravans/mobile homes were identified as being in situ across the Borough. Each pitch is considered to be equivalent to 1.6 caravans for the purpose of the RSS calculations. At the time of making his statement, there were 151.8 pitches although …
…the highly vulnerable uses in table D.2 should not be permitted in such a zone”. Table D.2 includes caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use in the “highly vulnerable” category. Furthermore, the Environment Agency has, in…
47.
East Hampshire DC v Davies Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 20 November 1990
Subject: Planning; Civil procedure
Keywords: Enforcement notices; Interlocutory injunctions; Mobile homes
Where Reported: (1991) 61 P. & C.R. 481; [1991] 2 P.L.R. 8; [1991] 10 E.G. 149
Documents: Case Analysis  (1991) 61 P. & C.R. 481
Terms in Context:
…application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants or agents (a) from occupying or residing in a mobile home or residential caravan and (b) 482 from using for the storage of mobile homes, residential caravans, vehicle trailers and showground or funfair equipment land at Bowleswood Farm, Headley, Bordon, Hampshire. The facts are stated in the …
…breach of the planning legislation, as an area for a showman’s winter quarters. That involved the placing of vehicles, including mobile homes, on the site and, says the council, constitutes a material change of use. That change of use was unauthorised and a breach of the planning laws. There are upon the land, according to the evidence, five residential caravans or mobile homes, together with 11 assorted vehicles or trailers. The council’s view is that these vehicles are a particularly offensive sight …
…met the defendant, who told him that he intended to use the land as a winter stop-over for his caravans and equipment. Mr. Curtis gave the defendant a copy of the 1985 enforcement notice. On November 24, 1989, Mr. Curtis visited the site again and found on it five residential caravans or mobile homes and 11 other vehicles or trailers. On January 8, 1990, the council issued three summonses against the defendant in …
…inter alia) an injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his servants or agents (a) from occupying or residing in a mobile home or residential caravan or otherwise howsoever on the site, and (b) from using the site for the storage of mobile homes, residential caravans, vehicle trailers and showground or funfair equipment. On January 22, 1990, the defendant applied for planning permission to use the …
…the appeal and it was struck out of the list.Fourthly, the defendant’s evidence is that he lives in a mobile home on the site and has nowhere else where he can store his vehicles and equipment. The legislation, I should observe, shows a degree of protectiveness in relation to a resident in a mobile home in that section 190 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 provides that a stop notice shall not prohibit the use of land as a site for a caravan occupied by any person as his only or main residence. Moreover, the showman’s winter season is now upon us and…

 

48.
Clarke-Gowan v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 13 June 2002
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravans; Employment; Gypsies; Planning permission
Where Reported: [2002] EWHC 1284 (Admin); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)2002-06-13 724 2002 WL 1311114 Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC …
…course of his judgment: “It is because they have no fixed abode and no fixed employment that gypsies live in caravans, so that they can both have a home and go where work is. It may be seasonal or sporadic, regular or occasional; to reach it they must use the caravans in which they live. Living in them as they do for that purpose, they are entitled under the Act to …
…995In that case the issue was whether the site in question was “occupied by a local authority as a caravan site providing for gypsies” within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 , i.e. that it was not a “protected site”, so that the security of tenure provisions of that …
…for four to five months a year. In 1987 they had been absent for three months. They had one residential caravan (presumably left permanently at [the site]) and one mobile caravan (presumably used on their travels). Their pattern of life was typical of many other residents on the Thistlebrook site. They …
…case was the fact that, on the occasions that he travelled further afield to do building work, he took his caravan to live in while he was away from his permanent mobile home on the appeal site. In other words, during the periods that the Claimant was working away from the vicinity of the appeal site, the caravan in which he stayed was as much his home as was the mobile home stationed at the appeal site.” I interpolate to say that this was undoubtedly the critical assertion made by the…

 

49.
Caravillas Trade Mark Application Trade Marks Registry, 18 July 1980
Subject: Intellectual property
Keywords: Ownership; Time; Trade marks
Where Reported: [1981] R.P.C. 381
Documents: Case Analysis  [1981] R.P.C. 381
Terms in Context:
…LimitedIntellectual property Ownership Time Trade marks Application opposition prior use Application was made to register Caravillas in class 12 caravans adapted for use as mobile homes. The opponents had applied 11 months later to register Caravillas for caravans in general. They alleged prior use and resultant rightful ownership of the mark. The evidence showed that the applicants had used the mark first in 1975 in respect of rented caravans. Held, that (1) the applicants had used the mark as a trade mark within the meaning of the Act and…
50.
Greenwich LBC v Powell House of Lords, 08 December 1988
Subject: Local government
Keywords: Caravan sites; Gypsies; Local authorities powers and duties; Possession; Protected areas; Statutory interpretation
Where Reported: [1989] A.C. 995; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 7; [1989] 1 All E.R. 65; (1989) 21 H.L.R. 218; 87 L.G.R. 423; (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 249; [1989] 1 P.L.R. 108; [1989] J.P.L. 513; (1989) 153 L.G. Rev. 328; (1989) 86(3) L.S.G. 44; (1989) 133 S.J. 46
Documents: Case Analysis  [1989] A.C. 995  [1989] 2 W.L.R. 7  (1989) 21 H.L.R. 218  (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 249
Terms in Context:
…TemplemanTempleman, Lord Lord Griffiths Griffiths, Lord Lord Ackner Ackner, Lord Lord Lowry Lowry, Lord (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Local government Caravan sites Gypsies Local authorities powers and duties Possession Protected areas Statutory interpretation Caravan sites accommodation for gipsies whether site protected Sites provided for gipsies by local authorities pursuant to the 1968 Act are outside the definition of “protected site” within the Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.5(1) P was a gipsy living on the local authority’s site, who spent about four …
…within s.5(1) of the 1983 Act.Held, that P might be a gipsy within the meaning of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 , but sites provided by local authorities in performance of their duties under the 1968 Act were excluded …
…February 1, 1994Woolhead v Secretary of State for the Environment and Epping Forest DC (1996) 71 P. & C.R. 419 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part .1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Parts Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.4 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.4(4) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.5(1) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6(1) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.10 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.11 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.12 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.12(3) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.12(4) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.16 Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part I Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part II Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.1(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.24 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I County Court Rules 1981 (SI 1981 1687) Gipsy Encampments (Designation of …
…Local Government Act 1985 (c.51) s.16Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) s.175(1) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.4 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5(1) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.6 Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) Mobile Homes Act 1963 Mobile Homes Act 1983 Part I 1989189001 722…