(on the application of Jordan) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 2 December 2008
Subject: Planning; Human rights; Local government
Keywords: Enforcement notices; Green belt; Inappropriate development; Material considerations; Mobile homes; Retrospective permission; Right to respect for private and family life; Temporary permissions; Very special circumstances
Where Reported: [2008] EWHC 3307 (Admin); [2009] J.P.L. 1010; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…of the BLP sets out the categories of development regarded as appropriate within the green belt. These include development for agriculture and forestry and other uses of land which preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land …
…belt is given in development plan policies GB1, USP12 and GB7 and in the Government’s PPG2 . The stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes, the subject of Notice 1, not connected with agriculture or other appropriate rural uses, is clearly not an appropriate development in the green belt in terms of this policy guidance. Likewise the construction of …
…ground (g) should succeed to the extents specified above.“Other Matters. “34. The Appellant submits that the removal of the mobile home, his only home, and the cessation of the residential use, would interfere with his human rights as protected by Articles 1 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR). He submits that his right to respect for his private and family life and to own and use his property would be violated by the proposed enforcement action. He says that the enforcement actions against him are not …
…locations.“6. I also note that under policy GB7 temporary dwellings are not permitted in the Green Belt except where mobile homes are proposed in connection with agriculture or other uses appropriate in the Green Belt, but that is not the case in this instance. I therefore conclude that the appeal …
…Green Belt. Although Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3), which has superseded PPG3 referred to by the appellant, promotes the use of previously-developed land, this does not override the PPG2 policy of protection of the Green Belt from inappropriate development. “12. The appellant argues that he and his wife own the site and the mobile home and that they have no other property or dwelling. Nonetheless, whether or not the appellant had contrary information from an…
72.
Change of use – agriculture to breeding horses – residential use for gypsies – mobile home
Citation: J.P.L. 1996, Jul, 584-590
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Change of use; Gypsies; Planning permission
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…LJI0000195353JOURNAL OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LAW 000000079415 Legal Journals Index 1072 Article – Journal Case Comment Change of use – agriculture to breeding horses – residential use for gypsies – mobile home. J.P.L. 1996, Jul, 584-590 J.P.L. 1996, Jul, 584-590 Journal of Planning & Environment Law Planning Caravan sites Change of use Gypsies Planning permission Whether gipsy had abandoned nomadic lifestyle by moving to settled site. Caravan Sites Act 1968 s.16…
73.
South Cambridgeshire DC v Gammell Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 31 October 2005
Subject: Planning; Civil procedure
Keywords: Addition of parties; Breach of injunctions; Caravans; Contempt of court; Gypsies; Personal circumstances; Planning control
Where Reported: [2005] EWCA Civ 1429; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 658; [2006] B.L.G.R. 193; [2006] J.P.L. 873; Times, November 3, 2005; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis [2006] 1 W.L.R. 658 Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…the council’s appeal and granted an injunction against persons unknown, inter alia, restraining the deposit of hardcore other than for agricultural purposes on plots 1-11 Victoria View, Smithy Fen and the stationing of caravans, mobile homes or other forms of residential accommodation on the land other than for agricultural purposes. The injunction excluded from its ambit certain individuals already on the site. In February 2005 the council served an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of use of the site for the stationing of caravans, against which an appeal was lodged. The defendant, Kathleen Gammell, was served …
…187B of the 1990 Act for injunctive relief against the defendants, who are gipsies, to prevent them from living in mobile homes and caravans on land acquired by them for that purpose, but for which planning consent had been refused. The defendants …
…each of the cases before the House of Lords, when the injunction was granted the respondent was in occupation of mobile homes or caravans in breach of planning law. As I read the speeches of the Appellate Committee, they endorsed the approach …
…became overgrown. In 2001 a number of plots were acquired by travellers, who erected hardstanding, roadways and fencing and put mobile homes and caravans on the site. All that was done without planning permission. Enforcement action was commenced by BLBC and some …
…schedule to the claim form dated 14 July 2004 therein) causing or permitting hardcore to be deposited other than for agricultural purposes on land known as plots 1-11, Victoria View … caravans, mobile homes or other forms of residential accommodation to be stationed other than for agricultural purposes on the said land; or existing caravans, mobile homes or other forms of residential accommodation on the said land to be occupied other than for agricultural purposes.”The order (which was endorsed with a penal notice) was in these terms: “The respondents shall be restrained until trial or further order from causing or permitting-(1) Hardcore to be deposited other than for agricultural purposes on land known as plots 1-11 …” Paras 2 and 3 are in the same form as the same…
74.
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:
…Kingdom09 May 1996 Sir 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 …
…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. Held, allowing the appeal, that there should have been…
75.
Swale BC v First Secretary of State Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 4 March 2005
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Administrative decision making; Barn conversions; Enforcement notices; Findings of fact; Lawful development certificates; Planning inspectors; Residential development
Where Reported: [2005] EWHC 290 (Admin); [2005] J.P.L. 1523; [2005] N.P.C. 38; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…fact are contained in paragraphs 20 to 23 of his decision letter as follows:— “20 Initially the barn was probably used for agricultural and other storage, and the evidence suggests that an element of residential use was first introduced during Mr Bennett’s ownership of the site. It was during this period that the mobile homes were first introduced and by the end of it they were so firmly attached and incorporated into the building that they were in essence part of its structure rather than freestanding mobile homes. However, the evidence before me indicated that Mr Bennett’s use was sporadic and casual and did not amount to use of the building as a dwelling house. In contrast Mr Colby’s evidence suggest that, for a period of almost a …
…undermined during cross examination or by contrary evidence and I attach due credence to it. I am satisfied that residential use of the building began during his occupation. 21 Mr Lee acquired the site in 1996 but didn’t live in the building straight away. Indeed for two or three years the mobile home on the site and the barn appear to have provided residential accommodation for several people at various times, sometimes both being occupied and occasionally neither. This erratic pattern of use probably accounts for the various observations of the site recorded by the Council and possibly the failure of the appellants’ agent to refer to residential use in planning applications and letters during this period. However once initial repairs were carried out the barn appear to have been fitted and available for residential use from then onwards. The Council acknowledges its residential use from 2000 to the present day. There is no substantial evidence that, since Mr Colby’s occupation, the barn was used for any purpose other than residential except, from time to time, for minor storage connected with the use of the site as a whole. 22 I have taken into account Miss Champion’s evidence and the lack of reference to residential use in some planning applications and correspondence. However during part of the relevant period the appellant had a difficult and complicated personal life, and I accept that these factors affected both his use of the site, and the control he was able to apply to the works being carried out there. I have …
…decision letter set out at paragraph 14 of the judgment as follows:— “There is no need to demonstrate that a use has been in continuous existence throughout a ten-year period. Unless there has been a clear-cut change in planning circumstances, such as a grant of planning permission for an alternative use, the introduction of another use incompatible with the original use or an indication of a deliberate intention to abandon the original use then the use will survive throughout ten years.” Then at paragraph 6:— “This evidence was garnered to demonstrate a material change of use to a general aviation airfield some considerable time after I consider that it took place. Its overall effect is to reinforce my conviction that at no time was the airfield use abandoned after the Sky-ads operation ceased. Panton and Farmer makes it clear that once a use had ceased, its resumption would not amount to a material change of use unless that use had been abandoned. The result is that land can have a dormant use even though the unauthorised activities may not be functioning for significant periods of time … Overall, I can find no clear evidence of abandonment of the airfield use since the Sky-ads operation ceased in 1983–4. As a consequence, I find, as a matter of fact and …
…was deficient because he did not give reasons why he differed from the findings of the earlier inspectors that the mobile homes were not secured to the structure of the barn and could have been removed. I do not accept that the degree to which the mobile homes were secured to the fabric of the barn was a matter which was fundamental to the conclusion of the Inspector that the barn had been used as a dwelling for four years. The issue which he had to decide was whether the barn was being used as a dwelling during such period, albeit that the method of use was by the incorporation into it of the facilities contained in the two mobile homes. It must be borne in mind that a misapprehension by the second inspector of this aspect of the use by Mr Lee of the barn was the reason why Judge Rich quashed the second inspectors decision. At paragraph 8 …
…proposition that it does not follow from the fact that the caravans are not part of a building that heir use is not part of the use of the building.9 Although it is easy to understand how the inspector came to overlook that proposition it seem to me to be clear and unassailable. Non operational development involves the making of a material change in the use of land. That includes a building. The space enclosed by a building is necessarily the area whose use determines the use of the building. In my judgment the use of caravans positioned within a building must be part of the use of the building, and will be material to, if not determinative of, the question whether the use of the building is, or is not, used as a single dwelling house. Of course if a caravan is merely stored within a building, its use may be ancillary to the use of the building, or independent of that use. Where however, its use is residential, and such use is in conjunction with the use of the building, it must constitute a part of the use of the building. It is on that basis that the test which the inspector set out correctly in paragraph 14…
76.
Green belt – gypsies – stationing of mobile home – application for planning permission refused – enforcement notices – approach to special circumstances (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 2002, Dec, 1509-1524
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravans; Green belt; Gypsies; Planning permission
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…Borough Council (“the Claimant”) issued two enforcement notices (and refused an application for planning permission) in respect of the unauthorised use of land in the Green Belt for the stationing of a mobile home, the construction of a septic tank and the laying of hardcore, for domestic use. The Claimant refused to grant planning permssion and, following an appeal against that refusal and the enforcement notices, the Inspector …
…legitimate concerns as to the extent to which it could and would be advanced by others wishing to have a mobile home on a plot of their own in the Green Belt.2. As to ground 2 of the challenge, although the word precedent was not used, the Claimant was clearly concerned that similar arguments to those advanced by the Appellant could easily be advanced by other travellers who were dissatisfied with their living conditions, who had experienced problems of drug use, crime and vandalism on authorised sites, and who had children. There was clearly a concern that a decision to accede …
…refuse to grant planning permission. The breach of planning control alleged in enforcement notice A was the unauthorised change of use from agricultural to a joint use of agricultural and residential. Enforcement notice B alleged the unauthorised construction of a septic tank and the laying of hard core for domestic use. The development proposed in the application for planning permission was the retention of a mobile home, a relocatable building, a septic tank and hard core access road. 2. The appeals site is in the Green Belt …
…Farm. At the time of my site visit the north-eastern corner of the site was occupied by the appellant’s mobile home, a relocatable building used for toilet, washing and domestic storage and a touring caravan. The site lies a little to the north of the …
…legitimate concerns as to the extent to which it could and would be advanced by others wishing to have a mobile home on a plot of their own in the Green Belt.58. Turning to ground 2 of the challenge, although the word precedent was not used in the Council’s representations, the claimant was clearly concerned that similar arguments to those advanced by the appellant could easily be advanced by other travellers who were dissatisfied with their living conditions, who had experienced problems of drug use, crime and vandalism on authorised sites, and who had children. Such problems are not confined to gypsy sites, but occur…
77.
Aylesbury Vale DC v Miller Queen’s Bench Division, 30 July 1999
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Discretion; Enforcement notices; Gypsies; Injunctions
Where Reported: Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…M, a gypsy, purchased a field in open countryside. Without applying for planning permission, M brought onto the site two mobile homes and a caravan. Having given up the tenancy of a council house in the area M, his wife and four children used the site as their permanent home. M, until ill health prevented him, also used the site for business purposes, again without planning permission. M applied for planning permission to AVDC for the siting of a mobile home and mixed use of residential and agricultural land. The application was refused on the grounds that it would adversely affect the appearance and character of the surrounding…
78.
Calamassi v Aylesbury Vale DC Planning Inspector, 30 October 2008
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural buildings; Conversion; Interpretation; Planning permission; Planning policy; Residential development; Rural areas
Where Reported: [2009] P.A.D. 13
Documents: Case Analysis [2009] P.A.D. 13
Terms in Context:
…Planning Inspector2008-10-30 725 [2009] P.A.D. 13 91 M Calamassi Aylesbury Vale DC Agricultural buildings Conversion Interpretation Planning permission Planning policy Residential development Rural areas Reconstruction of barn as a dwelling—planning permission for …
…the north, stands a two-storey house in a garden with frontage to the road and a tract of open agricultural land, both within the ownership of the appellant. To the south and west of the appeal site is a range of buildings used for equestrian activities, including residential mobile homes, all unconnected with the appellant other than the sharing of the vehicular access.” “This tight-knit group of former agricultural buildings, including the structure in question, together with the adjacent house (described in evidence as the former farmhouse), form an enclave of development within surroundings the character of which is drawn from the predominantly open agricultural land divided into fields by hedgerows interspersed with trees, its rolling topography and the limited number of buildings.” “The PPS7 …
…areas away from which new housing is to be directed.” “This finds support in Annex A of PPS7 which concerns agricultural, forestry and other occupational dwellings; para.11 of Annex A seeks to ensure such dwellings would be ‘well-related to …
…structure as would be obtainable, including those over longer distances, would also be seen as part of the enclave of agricultural and equine-related buildings. In addition, the appellant avers that the appearance of the site would be enhanced by the …
…would, in itself, carry limited weight.”“Moreover, the barns are typical functional and utilitarian structures of their time, of an agricultural character and appearance, which are part-and-parcel of the rural scene. Their removal might be noticed and would no…
79.
Cotswold DC v Ford Queen’s Bench Division, 18 February 2002
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Injunctions; Mobile homes; Planning control; Suspension
Where Reported: [2002] P.L.C.R. 24; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis [2002] P.L.C.R. 24 Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…Queen’s Bench Division2002-02-18 724 [2002] P.L.C.R. 24 494 Cotswold DC Ford Queen’s Bench Division Mr …
…the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an injunction to prevent the defendants keeping or living in caravans or mobile homes in a field at Withington, Gloucestershire, and to require them to reinstate the land to its former condition. The field is owned by some of the defendants, but the present use is not covered by any grant of planning permission. The case raises issues to be decided under the principles set …
…21, 2001. Some of the defendants appeared in person and were questioned. They gave a list of relevant caravans and mobile homes then on site. The interim order prohibited the stationing of any more. The site was inspected for the claimant that day, and only seven caravans or mobile homes were found. The order was varied on application to Hallett J. without notice the following day. The current position is that there are 10 caravans or mobile homes on the site. In evidence before me it was denied that there was any change since June 2001, but no …
…of these valleys, which are dotted with small and visually attractive villages. Both the engineering works, and the caravans and mobile homes, are visually intrusive and jarring. Screening could soften the impact, but would itself change the natural character and appearance of the area. (b) Change of use from agricultural land. Planning policies discourage residential developments in the open countryside on grounds of conservation, transport impact and sustainability. Although gypsy …
…obvious, and further intensification with the provision of hard surfacing would make them more obvious and jarring. The caravans and mobile homes are easily apparent. In the absence of planning considerations justifying permission, which is a matter to be considered on any…
80.
Green belt: application for permission for stationing of caravan and mobile home (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 2009, 2, 197-211
Subject: Planning; Environment
Keywords: Caravans; Change of use; Green belt; Gypsies; Inappropriate development; Planning policy guidance; Temporary permissions
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…Case CommentJPL Journal of Planning & Environment Law 2009 2 Green belt: application for permission for stationing of caravan and mobile home J.P.L. 2009, 2, 197-211 Planning Environment Caravans Change of use Green belt Gypsies Inappropriate development Planning policy guidance Temporary permissions Wychavon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local …
…stationed a caravan there and lived there. In December 2005 the applicants made an application for permission to station a mobile home and caravan. Planning permission had previously been granted for a change from agricultural to equestrian use but it was unclear whether this covered the business as it was developed by Mr Butler. There had been some previous enforcement action relating to uses on the site, but the details were not clear from the decision. The residential use of the site was in breach of planning control, and it was “inappropriate development” in the context of green belt …
…of alternative sites available to this family. The inspector granted temporary permission for five years for the stationing of the mobile home and touring caravan on the site. Wychavon DC (the council) appealed and the judge held that the inspector’s decision was …
…inspector, Mr G M Hollington. He had granted temporary planning permission (for five years) for the continued stationing of a mobile home and a touring caravan on a site in the Green Belt at Upton Warren, Worcestershire. The judge held that the …
…business of breeding, dealing and breaking horses.3. In December 2005 they made their application for permission to station a mobile home and caravan. It appears from the decision-letter that planning permission had previously been granted for a change from agricultural to equestrian use, but it is unclear whether this covered the business as it was developed by Mr Butler. There had been some previous enforcement action relating to uses on the site, but again the details of this are not clear from the decision. It is not in dispute that the present residential use of the site is in breach of planning control, and that it is “inappropriate development” in the context of Green…