Mobile Home Case Law 6

112-mobilehome-logcabin-kithomes

 

Biss v Smallburgh Rural DC Court of Appeal, 20 March 1964
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Declarations; Licensing
Where Reported: [1965] Ch. 335; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 88; [1964] 2 All E.R. 543; (1964) 128 J.P. 354; 62 L.G.R. 409; (1964) 15 P. & C.R. 351; [1964] R.V.R. 597; (1964) 108 S.J. 297
Documents: Case Analysis  [1965] Ch. 335  [1964] 3 W.L.R. 88  (1964) 15 P. & C.R. 351  
Terms in Context:
...acres not used for farming, alternatively, the area of 35 acres comprised in areas 9a and 11, constituted an "existing site" as defined by section 13 of the Act; secondly, a declaration that the council had wrongfully failed or refused to issue a site licence.By their statement of claim, which described the whole area of 72 acres as a caravan site, they alleged that during certain years from 1936 to 1948 the site or parts thereof had been used for the stationing of caravans, but that plea was abandoned at an early stage. They further alleged that the whole area of [35] acres or some part thereof had in every year been used for stationing caravans and for no other use. Relying on the work of preparation carried out on the site, the advertisement and the fact that on August 29, 1960, there were 19 caravans on the site, they claimed that as the result of the application for a site licence made on October 28, 1960, to which no answer had been received by April 28, 1961, there was deemed planning permission in respect of the site and that a licence in respect thereof had been wrongfully refused. By their defence, the council did not admit the stationing of caravans on the site before June, 1960, denied that the area was 342 an existing site and justified their refusal to grant a site licence. The action was tried by Ungoed-Thomas J. On July 9, 1963, in a reserved judgment, the judge held that section 13 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, required that the land should be used as a caravan site on March 9, 1960; that the words "in use" and "used" in subsection (a) excluded a discontinued use; that the use of the land for caravans had been discontinued at the end of each season. He found, inter alia, that the use of the land for caravans had been sporadic, and since it was not possible to say that a caravan had been stationed on it at both material dates for the purposes of the Act of 1960, nor was any land used in conjunction with land on which a caravan was stationed, it had not been established that any part of the relevant land comprised in the 35 acres constituted an existing caravan site; but he then concluded that the previous history of use, although discontinued, had given the plaintiffs some immunity from enforcement ...
...no evidence had been specifically directed) on and before March 9, 1960, was sufficient to constitute that part of the site an existing site on March 9, 1960. He made declarations that that area was an existing site and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a site licence in respect thereof. The council appealed, claiming that there were no existing use rights and the plaintiffs cross-appealed, claiming that the judge had wrongly held that the whole site of 35 acres was not an existing site. During the hearing of the appeals, without seeking to amend the pleadings, they sought alternatively to claim declarations that smaller areas of the site, other than the area declared by the judge, were existing sites. Nigel Bridge for the defendants. There was in this case no "existing site" as defined by section 13 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. If the plaintiffs were entitled under that section to the declaration made, there is no dispute that they were also entitled to the issue of a site licence under section 3 of the Act. It is conceded that the plaintiffs applied for a site licence within two months of the Act coming into force, and that the defendants took no action within the six months prescribed by section 17. If, therefore, there was an existing site the plaintiffs would have 343 an unconditional right to a site licence, but there was no such existing site. The definition of "existing site" in section 13 (a) of the Act refers to two crucial dates - March 9, 1960 (when the Bill was published), and August 29, 1960 (when the Act came into operation). It is common ground that there were no caravans on the site on March 9, but on August 29, there were about 19 caravans spread over an area of about 40 acres. In holding that there was an existing site, Ungoed-Thomas J. relied on two circumstances: (i) the "incidental, unsettled, fortuitous and spasmodic" user in preceding years and (ii ...
...of the trial judge. The basic question for the judge was one of fact - whether the plaintiffs had proved either constructive or inherent user of any, and if so what, areas on March 9 and August 29, 1960. Only the land on which a caravan stands and a small area around it is made use of: Reg. v. Axbridge Rural District Council, Ex parte Wormald. [1964] 1 W.L.R. 442 The question is whether a small number of caravan plots over a large area, temporarily occupying different spots at different times, has evolved into a caravan site over the whole area claimed. The factors to be considered in determining whether caravan-plot-use has evolved into caravan-site-use over a wider area are: (1) The scale of use in proportion to the total area over which the caravans are spread out. The problem would have been much easier of solution had not Hartnell v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1964] 2 Q.B. 510 decided that a caravan site was an area of land and not a right to have so many caravans on the land. A further point under this head is the duration of the user, and, where such user is ...
...by the planning authority).Section 5 empowers the local authority to impose conditions, in particular as to the number of caravans to be stationed on the site at any one time and their position, and to ensure the amenity of the land and adequate sanitary and other facilities. Section 6 relieves the applicant from committing an offence under section 1 pending the issue of a site licence. Section 13 and the following sections are headed "Special provisions as to existing sites." Section 13 defines "existing site" as: "(a) Land which is in use as a caravan site at the commencement of this Act and which was also used as a caravan site on [March 9, 1960]." The remainder of the definition does not apply in this case. Section 14 exempts existing sites from an offence under section 1 for two months from the coming into force of the Act, and if within that period the occupier duly makes application for a site licence (as the plaintiffs did here) further exempts the existing site until a site licence is issued. Section 16 limits the use of an existing site before the issue of a site licence to the number of 356 caravans stationed on the site at the coming into force of the Act. Section 17 (1) applies to an application for a site licence in respect of an existing site made within two months of the Act coming into force other than an application in respect of a site which already has express permission under the Act of 1947. Section 17 (2) obliges the local authority to transmit the ...
...points seem to emerge: (a) The policy of the Act of 1960 is to put all use of land for caravans under the control of the local authority subject to planning legislation. Section 13 and its sequels make an exception for vested rights. (b) Unless exempted under the Act of 1960 or entitled to a site licence the plaintiffs cannot use any part of their land for the stationing of caravans. The provisions of the General Development Order, 1950, to which I have referred ceased to be effective on the coming into force of the Act of 1960 so far as they concerned caravans. (c) It was conceded that no caravan was in fact stationed on the land on March 9, 1960: in my judgment, however, it does not follow from this that land may not have been "in use as a caravan site" although the caravans using it were temporarily absent owing to the season of the year or for other reasons. Many such sites are only in seasonal use. (d) No express planning permission has been given to the plaintiffs, who therefore may not be given a site licence unless they are deemed to have such planning permission under section 17 (3). This planning permission is only effective to the extent that there is in existence an existing site. (e) Having regard to the wording of section 14 the local authority must be bound to issue a licence if lana be an existing site. (f) The plaintiffs did within the two months allowed under section 17 (1) make application for a site licence in respect of 35 acres of their land. The planning authority did not issue any 357 planning permission nor did...
12.
Buckley v United Kingdom (20348/92) European Court of Human Rights, 25 September 1996
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Gypsies
Where Reported: (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 101; [1997] 2 P.L.R. 10; [1996] J.P.L. 1018; Times, October 9, 1996; Independent, October 10, 1996
Documents: Case Analysis  (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 101  
Terms in Context:
...to override the objections on planning policy and highway safety grounds to the retention of the use of the appeal site as a residential caravan site for gypsies. On this approach, the view is taken that the objections to the continued use of the appeal site as a residential gypsy caravan site are so strong, on planning policy and highway safety grounds, that a grant of planning permission could not be justified either on a temporary or personal basis. In reaching this conclusion, full consideration has been given to policy advice in the Department's Circular 28/77, giving guidance to Councils on the need to provide adequate accommodation in the form of caravan sites, for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area. However, on the available evidence, the view is taken, in agreement with the officer's appraisal, that the concentration of gypsy caravan sites around the Willingham area has reached the desirable maximum, and the overall need for additional sites should not outweigh the planning and highway objections arising from the continued use of this particular site. The applicant did not appeal to the High Court because she was advised by Counsel that no grounds arose in ...
...12 December 1995.The applicant has filed an appeal to the High Court, which is now pending. F. Authorised gypsy sites in the District of South Cambridgeshire 24. In November 1992 the County Council opened an official gypsy caravan site in Meadow Drove, about 700 metres away from the applicant's land. The site consists of 15 pitches, each comprising a fenced, partially grassed area with hard standing for caravans and its own brick building containing a kitchen, shower and toilet. Each pitch is designed to accommodate one permanent caravan, one touring caravan, one lorry and one car. They are joined by a central road and the site stands in open countryside. 25. Between November 1992 (when the site opened) and August 1995, 28 vacancies have arisen there. The District Council contacted the applicant by letters dated 17 February 1992 and 20 January 1994, informing her of the possible availability of pitches on this site and advising her to apply for one to the County Council. The applicant has never taken any action in this regard. 26. Since the site opened the following incidents have reportedly taken place there: (1) an unsubstantiated allegation in May 1993 that one of the residents was in possession of a firearm; (2) a fight in December 1993 during which a resident on the site was punched in the eye by another; (3) in 1994 a car was brought onto the site and set alight; (4) in the same year there was an incident of domestic violence; (5) also in 1994, the warden's office on the site was burgled and damaged when temporarily vacant; (6) in 1995 a site resident was convicted of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace after exchanging words and threatening gestures with a District Council refuse collector on the site; (7) in March 1995 four pitches were damaged by vandalism and/or fire. 27. There are authorised privately-run sites at Smithy Fen, Cottenham, about 7 km from Willingham. In May 1995 the cost of 110 purchasing a pitch on ...
...to local authorities within designated areas power to apply to a magistrates' court for an order authorising them to remove caravans parked in contravention of section 10 2. The Cripps Report 38. By the mid 1970s it had become apparent that the rate of site provision under section 6 of the 1968 Act was inadequate, and that unauthorised encampments were leading to a number of social problems. In February 1976, therefore, the Government asked Sir John Cripps to carry out a study into the operation of the 1968 Act. He reported in July 1976. Accommodation for Gypsies: A Report on the working of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, “The Cripps Report”. Sir John estimated that there were approximately 40,000 gypsies living in England and Wales. He found that: Six-and-a-half years after the coming into operation of Part II of the 1968 Act, provision exists for only one-quarter of the estimated total number of gypsy families with no sites of their own. Three-quarters of them are still without the possibility of finding a legal abode … Only when they ...
...whether as a National Park, as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or as a Green Belt. The stationing of caravans on the frontage on the site had been authorised, as had the erection of buildings belonging to an agricultural engineering business on neighbouring land. See para. 16 above. An official gypsy caravan site had been opened further down Meadow Drove. See para. 24 above. Moreover, the Inspector, in her report of May 1995, had found that the applicant's site could be adequately screened from view by planting hedges. See para. 22 above. 73. For the same reasons as given by the applicant, the Commission 129 accepted that the applicant could not be required to move to the official site further down Meadow Drove. It further accepted that the space available on other official caravan sites in the South Cambridgeshire area was insufficient. See para. 16 above. Nor could the applicant be required to move to a private authorised site, the Inspector herself having expressed doubts as to the availability of plots on such sites and their price. See para. 22 above. 2. The Court's assessment (a) General principles 74. As is well established in ...
...to override the objections on planning policy and highway safety grounds to the retention of the use of the appeal site as a residential caravan site for gypsies. On this approach, the view is taken that the objections to the continued use of the appeal site as a residential gypsy caravan site are so strong, on planning policy and highway safety grounds, that a grant of planning permission could not be justified, either on a temporary or personal basis. In reaching this conclusion, full consideration has been given to policy advice in the Department's Circular 28/77, giving guidance to Councils on the need to provide adequate accommodation in the form of caravan sites, for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area. 81. The applicant was offered the opportunity, first in February 1992 and again in January 1994, to apply for a pitch on the official caravan site situated about 700 metres from the land which she currently occupies. See paras. 24 and 25 above. Evidence has been adduced which tends to show that the alternative accommodation available at this location was not as satisfactory as the dwelling which she had established in contravention of the legal...
13.
Haslam v Kirkcudbridge CC Sheriff Court (South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway), 7 December 1961
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Conditions; Licences; Scotland
Where Reported: 1962 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 47; (1962) 78 Sh. Ct. Rep. 24
Documents: Case Analysis  1962 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 47  
Terms in Context:
...Sheriff Court of Dumfries and Galloway at DumfriesSheriff Margaret H. Kidd, Q.C. 7 December 1961 Town and country planning—Caravan sites—Licences— Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz. II, cap. 62), sections 5 and 7 The owner of a caravan site for twelve caravans appealed against conditions annexed to his licence requiring (a) permanent sanitary facilities; (b) certain fire precautions to be taken within the caravans; and (c) the provision of a number of fire-points. that these conditions were unduly burdensome and should be varied accordingly. Oliver Haslam, the owner of a caravan site at Sandyhills, New Abbey, appealed against the following conditions annexed to a licence issued to him by the local authority: 4. Water supply, sanitation, drainage and refuse disposal arrangements shall be to the ...
...the local authority”; and by substituting 1st April 1962, for 1st August 1961: Quoad ultra affirmed the conditions of the licence prescribed by the respondents. The Sheriff (Margaret H. Kidd, Q.C.). This is an appeal against the conditions attached by the County Council of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright to a caravan site licence for not more than twelve caravans during the period 1st March to 30th November, both dates inclusive, in each year, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act. 1960 The object of that Act was to enable local authorities to control the development of caravan sites within their areas. Section 5 authorises a local authority to attach to the grant of a caravan site licence “such conditions as the authority may think it necessary or desirable to impose on the occupier of the land in the interests of persons dwelling thereon in caravans or of any other class of persons or of the public at large…. Section 7 of the Act as applied to Scotland by section 32 (1) (c) gives a right of appeal to the occupier of a caravan site aggrieved by the conditions attached to his licence to the sheriff. In terms of section 7 , on appeal “the Court, if satisfied (having regard amongst other things to ...
...should keep in view.Condition 4 relates to sanitation. The appellant strongly objected to providing a weatherproof building of durable construction containing two water closets and two washbasins with running hot and cold water for females and similar sanitary accommodation for males. In considering whether it is “unduly burdensome” to require such facilities, it must be borne in mind that the site in question is a holiday caravan site for a maximum of twelve caravans in close proximity to the sea. Its use is restricted for all practical purposes to the summer months. Nearly all the caravans are brought to the site by their owners and most appear to spend only a few days there. The sole evidence tendered by an experienced caravanner who had spent holidays in a caravan at Sandyhills site (McCraith) was to the effect that most caravanners, if not all, now carried their own Elsan closet, and that provided ...
...stated categorically that, if he were compelled to erect the water-closets, and the wash-basins, he would close the caravan site at Sandyhills. No reliable evidence was tendered as to the probable cost of erecting and installing the sanitary accommodation desiderated, nor was any evidence led as to the revenue received from the caravan site. Having regard to the fact that the site is licensed only as a holiday site for twelve caravans, and that two water-closets are readily available in the vicinity at a cost of a 1d. should caravanners require ...
...No objection was taken by the respondents to the bins now provided. 4 (e). The incinerator at present on the site could be improved and I see no reason to vary Condition 4 (e). 4 (f). The appellant denied that he is responsible for any refuse deposited on the caravan site and stated that he is not responsible for the actions of others. Nevertheless, he is owner and occupier, and I think it neither “burdensome” nor unreasonable to require him to prevent the deposit of rubbish on the site. Condition 4 (f) stands. Conditions 6–11. These conditions relate to safety provisions for the prevention of fire. They are directed rather to the construction of caravans and to the conduct of caravanners than to the actings of the site-owner. They were imposed by the county council after consultation with officers of the South-West Scotland Area Fire Authority as recommended by the Department of Health. Nevertheless, in a caravan site like that in question, I think them unduly burdensome. It is unreasonable to expect that on such a site a supervisor can be constantly on the spot when caravanners arrive. In practice these conditions could not be enforced by the site-owner. They could only be notified by him to prospective occupiers of the site. In considering whether conditions attached to caravan site licences are unduly burdensome it must be kept in view that site-owners who fail to comply with the conditions of their licences are liable to heavy penalties ( section 9 of the Act), and it appears to me most undesirable to impose conditions which, in practice, it may well be impossible for the site-owner to carry out. The fire officer who gave evidence stated that all caravans approved by the National Caravan Council complied with the regulations for the prevention of fire stipulated. Accordingly, Conditions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be cancelled and, in lieu thereof, there shall be substituted:— “Where a caravan entering the site does not wear the badge of the National Caravan Council reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that no heating, lighting or cooking equipment within the caravan is likely to cause danger by fire.” Conditions 13, 15 and 16 also relate to the prevention of fire. The fire officer who gave evidence for the respondents had no personal experience of caravan fires. His evidence was that caravans are frequently constructed of very combustible material which has what he described as “a high flame spread” Mr McCraith, on the other hand, maintained that caravanners were generally very careful about fire risks and that the materials in use nowadays for the construction of caravans were fire-repellent. There is certainly no evidence that fires on caravan sites are a common occurrence. Nevertheless, some fire precautions on caravan sites are necessary. Conditions 13, 15 and 16. The site is not extensive. It seems to me to be “unduly burdensome” to require more than one adequately equipped fire point...
14.
James v Secretary of State for Wales House of Lords, 24 November 1966
Subject: Environment
Keywords: Caravan sites; Licensing
Where Reported: [1968] A.C. 409; [1967] 1 W.L.R. 171; [1966] 3 All E.R. 964; (1967) 131 J.P. 122; 65 L.G.R. 171; (1967) 18 P. & C.R. 165; (1967) 111 S.J. 55
Documents: Case Analysis  [1968] A.C. 409  [1967] 1 W.L.R. 171  (1967) 18 P. & C.R. 165  
Terms in Context:
...FOR WALESHL House of Lords UK United Kingdom 24 November 1966 Lord Reid Reid, Lord (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Environment Caravan sites Licensing Caravan sites licences existing site An application for a caravan site licence in respect of the whole of a piece of land may be regarded as having been made in respect of those parts of it which were "existing sites" within the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 s.13 In 1956 the owner of three and a half acres of land on which stood a single permanent caravan applied for planning permission to develop the whole as a pleasure ground. A plan on the application showed one permanent caravan and an area just under an acre marked "camping site." The planning authority gave permission for the one permanent caravan and twelve tents or caravans on the camping site. The owner appealed to the Minister who, in 1958, struck out the permission for the twelve tents or caravans. Nevertheless the owner put caravans on the site and no step was taken to stop him. Thus, when the 1960 Act came into operation in August 29, 1960, there were one or more "existing sites" within s.13 of that Act. On October 10, 1960, the owner applied to the local authority under s.17 of that Act for a caravan site licence for 40 caravans in respect of the whole of his land. On being told by the local authority's public health inspector that this ...
...was bound to fail, he made a second application on March 28, 1961, for the one permanent and 25 seasonal caravans. On April 5, 1961, the local authority gave permission for one caravan only, and in March, 1963, on behalf of the local planning authority, served an enforcement notice on the owner to ...
...that the application should be regarded as being made in respect of such parts of the land as were existing sites; (2) (Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissenting) that the application for a site licence on March 28, 1961, did not show an unequivocal intention to abandon rights under that of October 10, 1960; and...
...matter would be remitted to the Secretary of State for inquiry as to what parts of the land were "existing sites" within s.13 of the 1960 Act, unless the parties could agree what these areas were. Appeal allowed. ( Decision of ...
...Gurney Slade Quarry) Ltd[2000] Env. L.R. 582; (2000) 79 P. & C.R. 238; [2000] P.L.C.R. 117 1950 (SI 1950 728) Caravan Sites (Licence Applications) Order 1960 (SI 1960 ) Caravan Sites (Licence Applications) Order, 1960 (SI 1960 1474) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.1 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.3 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.5 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.8 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.9 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.10 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.13 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.14 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.17 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.23 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.26 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part III Development Charge Applications Regulations, 1950 (SI 1950 ) Ord.728 Land and Natural...
15.
West Glamorgan CC v Rafferty Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 22 May 1986
Subject: Planning; Administrative law
Keywords: Accommodation; Caravans
Where Reported: [1987] 1 W.L.R. 457; [1987] 1 All E.R. 1005; (1986) 18 H.L.R. 375; 85 L.G.R. 793; (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 261; [1988] J.P.L. 169; (1987) 84 L.S.G. 1493; (1987) 131 S.J. 472
Documents: Case Analysis  [1987] 1 W.L.R. 457  (1986) 18 H.L.R. 375  (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 261  
Terms in Context:
...West Glamorgan CCRafferty WEST GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL V RAFFERTY & ORS : R V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES & ANOR EX ...
...Slade LJRalph Gibson, L.J. Gibson, Ralph, LJ Sir John Megaw Megaw, Sir John (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Administrative law Accommodation Caravans Gipsies accommodation whether duty of local authority to provide "Squatters proceedings" Over a number of years gipsies had resided within the respondent authority's area. By June 1985 the authority were not providing any accommodation for the gipsies, whether permanent or temporary, pursuant to their duties under the 1968 Act. In September 1985 "squatters" proceedings were begun against a number of gipsies ...
...R. v Horsham DC Ex p. Wenman(1992) 24 H.L.R. 669; (1993) 157 L.G. Rev. 201; Times, May 22, 1992 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.10and Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.7 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.8 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.9 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.10 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.11 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.16 Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part II Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.24 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 Housing Act 1957 s.111 ...
...decision makingGypsies Judicial review Local authorities powers and duties Possession claims Right to respect for home Travellers Caught short sited. L.G.C. 1991, 6471, 16 Caravan sites Eviction Gypsies Local authorities powers and duties Judicial review as a defence to summary possession proceedings against squatters. Legal Action ...
...1989, May, 16-17Defences Judicial review Possession of land Squatting Unreasonableness, gipsies and injunctions. S.P.L.P. 1988, 23(Feb), 22 Caravan sites Gypsies Local authorities powers and duties Possession of land The Romany in Britain. C.L.J. 1987, 46(3), 374-377 Caravan sites Gypsies Local authorities powers and duties Possession of land 1986026448 723...
16.
Clyde Caravans (Langbank) Ltd v Renfrew CC Sheriff Court (North Strathclyde), 20 September 1961
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Conditions; Licences; Local authorities powers and duties; Scotland
Where Reported: 1962 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 20; (1961) 77 Sh. Ct. Rep. 128
Documents: Case Analysis  1962 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 20  
Terms in Context:
...Sheriff Court (North Strathclyde)1961-09-20 725 1962 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 20 20 Clyde Caravans (Langbank) Ltd. Renfrew County Council Sheriff Court of Renfrew and Argyll at Paisley Sheriff-Substitute John G. Wilson, Q.C. 20 September 1961 Local government—Public health—Caravan sites—Licence—Conditions of— Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz. II, cap. 62), sections 5 and 7 Section 5 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 , provides that in granting a licence for the use of land as a caravan site a local authority may attach certain conditions thereto, and that the Secretary of State may specify model standards to which ...
...condition, if satisfied (having regard amongst other things to any such model standards) that the condition is unduly burdensome. A site owner appealed against conditions which, inter alia, prohibited the use of awnings and required the provision of hard standings under the caravans. that the said conditions were unduly burdensome and should be varied. that a local authority should regard the model standards only as a guide when formulating conditions. Clyde Caravans (Langbank) Ltd., owners of a caravan site at West Ferry, Langbank, appealed under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 , against conditions attached to licences granted to them in respect of the said site. On 20th September 1961 the sheriff-substitute varied certain of the conditions, and quoad ultra refused the crave of the ...
...of red blaes, with a dwelling house, offices and workshop. Part of this entrance area is used for display of caravans. A road leads eastwards about half way between the main road and the Clyde. The width of the site (from road to river) is about 100 yards and there are caravans on both sides of the road, which is like the entrance area, surfaced with red blaes. The first part of the site, immediately east of the entrance area, is a “holiday site” : there are some caravans there which remain for long periods, but they are only occupied at weekends and during other short periods in the holiday season. Transient caravans are also accommodated there. That holiday site is about 150 yards long. Further east is the residential site, which is occupied by caravans used as permanent homes by people who prefer living in that way or who have been unable to obtain suitable accommodation elsewhere. I may say here that I was very impressed by the way in which many of the caravan-dwellers on the residential site (and indeed the occupiers of some of the quasi-permanent caravans on the holiday site) had taken a great deal of trouble to improve their surroundings by the creation of small gardens and terracing round their caravans; in one case this had gone as far as the making of a small pool, about two feet square, containing ...
...that extent there is some inherent contradiction in his attitude.I now turn to the conditions attached to the residential site licence. The first condition objected to was part of condition 3. The principal purpose of that condition is to limit the number of caravans to be brought on to the site and the pursuers accept this. The last sentence reads “The accommodation provided in caravans brought on to the site shall not be augmented by the provision of annexes, awnings or other temporary structures and no tents shall be permitted on the site.” In their written pleadings the pursuers ask for the deletion of this part of the condition, but in evidence it ...
...meaning of the word and I think it proper to vary condition 3 of the conditions attached tothe residential site licence by the deletion of the word “awnings” Condition 5 reflects very closely condition 3 of the model standards. I reproduce the relevant part of the tabulation already referred to. (a) (b) (c) (d) Condition in Licence in regard to which objections are condescended on. Relevant Section of said Model Standards referable to condition. Pursuers' objections thereto. Defenders' Answers Condition 5. Every caravan brought to the site shall be stationed on a hard standing formed of concrete or other suitable material laid down in such a manner as will permit of the hard standing projecting for at least 3 ft. outwards from the side of the caravan in front of its entrance. 3. Hard Standing for Caravans Every caravan should stand on a hard standing of a suitable material which should extend over the whole area occupied by the caravan and should project at least 3 ft. outwards from the side of the caravan in front of its entrance. Each of the existing permanent caravans is linked to a water supply below it. To comply with this condition would require disconnecting this supply and involve additional plumbing. Most of the said caravans are jacked up and in particular there are three large caravans which to be moved would require to be split. The removal of these and the majority of the others would...
17.
Greenwich LBC v Powell Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 23 February 1988
Subject: Local government; Housing
Keywords: Accommodation; Caravan sites; Gypsies; Mobile homes; Occupation; Statutory interpretation
Where Reported: (1988) 20 H.L.R. 411; (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 49; (1988) 152 L.G. Rev. 911; [1988] E.G. 27 (C.S.)
Documents: Case Analysis  (1988) 20 H.L.R. 411  (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 49  
Terms in Context:
...UKUnited Kingdom 23 February 1988 Purchas, L.J. Purchas LJ Heilbron, J. Heilbron J (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Local government Housing Accommodation Caravan sites Gypsies Mobile homes Occupation Statutory interpretation Caravan site accommodation for gipsies interpretation of definition of gipsies In deciding whether a site is "a caravan site providing accommodation for gipsies" within the Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.5(1) , it is necessary to decide whether at the relevant time the land in question was occupied as a caravan site providing accommodation on a continuing basis for gipsies. Gipsies are defined by the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s.16 as "persons of a nomadic habit of life"-a contemporaneous definition which must apply to the ...
...T.L.R. 623; (1948) 112 J.P. 55; 45 L.G.R. 635; [1948] L.J.R. 190; (1947) 177 L.T. 641; (1948) 92 S.J. 26Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6 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 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.16 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.6 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.6(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.10 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.11 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.12 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.16 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.24 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part II Caravans Sites Act 1968 Part I Caravans Sites Act 1968 Part II County Court Rules 1981 (SI 1981 1687) Gipsy Encampments (Designation of the London Borough of Greenwich ...
...34) s.5(1)Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c.43) "Protected sites" and the Mobile Homes Act 1983. L.G. Rev. 1988, 152(16), 301-302 Caravan sites Gypsies Local authorities powers and duties Possession of land 1988183096 723...
18.
Colaingrove Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 19 February 2004
Subject: VAT; Tax; Hospitality and leisure
Keywords: Caravan sites; EC law; Exclusion; Exempt supplies
Where Reported: [2004] EWCA Civ 146; [2004] S.T.C. 712; [2004] B.T.C. 5149; [2004] B.V.C. 209; [2004] S.T.I. 442; [2004] 9 E.G. 145 (C.S.); [2004] N.P.C. 26; Times, February 27, 2004; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  Official Transcript  
Terms in Context:
...February 2004Thorpe, L.J. Thorpe LJ Arden, L.J. Arden LJ Neuberger, L.J. (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited VAT Tax Hospitality and leisure Caravan sites EC law Exclusion Exempt supplies exempt supplies exclusions static caravan pitches C appealed against Customs' decision that the letting of caravan sites for seasonal pitches incurred VAT pursuant to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch.9 Part II Group 1. C was a company whose clients were typically purchasers of an eight-year licence to occupy a particular pitch on its caravan site, consisting of a slab of concrete with access to gas, water and electricity. Each licence contained a restriction that the owners must not live in the caravan as a permanent address and should not stay there overnight in the three months between December and February (the no sleep provision). The Sixth VAT Directive 77/388 Art.13B(b) excluded from the exemption to pay VAT the provision of accommodation in the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function. Furthermore, Art.13B gave Member States an option to apply further exclusions to the scope of the exemption (the tailpiece option). The judge held that C was outside the exemption in Art.13B(b) of the Directive and that under the jurisprudence of the European Court the power to define further exclusions from the exemption was wide, and he rejected the submission that the tailpiece option could not be used to deprive an ultimate consumer of the exemption. Customs contended that Art.13B(b) of the Directive exempted the leasing or letting of immovable property, set out a number of specific exclusions from this exemption and gave Member States the tailpiece option. C submitted that the licensing of static caravans on seasonal pitches should be exempt from VAT if they were used for residential purposes because the policy behind the exemption in Art.13B(b) was that the supply of land to final customers on a long term basis, particularly for residential customers, should be exempt. C further contended that there were anomalies in the exclusion from exemption of seasonal pitches, that the letting of caravans on seasonal pitches was not structurally suited to VAT, and that the exclusion of letting of seasonal pitches would apply even if the no sleep provision was only for one night and would also apply to caravans used for the storage of goods. The exclusion of the letting of seasonal pitches for caravans, which were unlikely to be occupied as a person's main residence, from the exemption to pay VAT was not incompatible with the Sixth VAT Directive Art.13B(b); under the tailpiece option, Member States had a discretion whether to restrict an exemption and also the respect in which the restriction should be achieved. Held, dismissing the appeal, that (1) under the tailpiece option Member States had a margin of discretion in considering whether to restrict an exemption and also as to the respects in which the restriction should be achieved. The test chosen by the Act in the case of caravan pitches was the test of seasonality. The European Court had in Blasi v Finanzamt Munchen I (C-346/95) Blasi ...
...211 applied the test of reasonableness to the decision of the German Government to impose temporality as the test for exempting non hotel type accommodation and the instant court should apply the same approach, Blasi considered; (2) the examples in C's submissions were likely to be exceptional and it would be difficult for an owner of a camping site to discern whether or not a seasonal pitch was to be used simply as a person's dwelling. It was accepted that the test of seasonality in the case of static caravan licences met the test of reasonableness. The exclusion of such property from the lettings exemption was consistent with the rationale of the exemption; (3) the exclusion of the letting of seasonal pitches for caravans, which were unlikely to be occupied as a person's main residence and as in the instant case were not permitted ...
...Part IIValue Added Tax Act 1994 Sch.9 Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch.9 Part II Group 1 Caravan pitches and VAT. E.P.S. 2004, 2(6), 15 Caravan sites Exemptions Licences VAT 2004117820 723...
19.
Doran v Liverpool City Council Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 3 March 2009
Subject: Landlord and tenant; Local government; Administrative law
Keywords: Judicial review; Licensees; Local authorities' powers and duties; Notices to quit; Possession claims; Traveller sites
Where Reported: [2009] EWCA Civ 146; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 2365; [2010] P.T.S.R. 47; [2010] H.L.R. 2; [2009] B.L.G.R. 395; [2009] N.P.C. 35; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis  [2009] 1 W.L.R. 2365  [2010] P.T.S.R. 47  [2010] H.L.R. 2  Official Transcript  
Terms in Context:
...and Aikens L.JJ. March 3, 2009 Judicial review Licensees Local authorities' powers and duties Notices to quit Possession claims Traveller sites Introduction Local authorities have power to provide sites for caravans in their area, which may be used as temporary or permanent residences for Gypsies and travellers: Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 s.24 Encyclopedia , para.2-254 et seq.). Security of tenure for occupiers of mobile homes is governed by Pt 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 Encyclopedia , para.2-0469 et seq.), and the Mobile Homes Act 1983 Encylcopedia , para.2-1431 et seq.). Caravans Sites Act 1968 Section 3(1)(b) of the Caravans Sites Act 1968 provides that it is an offence to evict an occupier of a mobile home without a court order ...
...FactsThe defendant was an Irish traveller. For a number of years prior to 2005, she camped unlawfully on various sites in the claimant authority’s district. On March 30, 2005, the authority granted her a licence to occupy a pitch on a caravan site. Soon after the defendant took up occupation of her pitch, difficulties arose between her family and other residents, which resulted in complaints to the authority about their behaviour. The defendant moved an additional caravan onto her pitch without obtaining the authority’s permission. On May 17, 2005, the authority’s site manager discovered four men in that caravan who told her that they were employed by the defendant’s husband. The authority served notice to quit on the ...
...up vacant possession of pitch 8, Tara Park, Oil Street, Liverpool, to the respondent (the Council). Tara Park is a site run by the Council under the regulations of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 . By written licence agreement dated March 30, 2005 the Council granted a licence to the appellant to occupy pitch 8. On June 12, 2006 the Council served on the appellant a notice to quit the site on July 10, 2006. In summary, the appellant argues that the Council’s decision to issue the notice to quit and to seek possession of the site was unlawful as a matter of public law, and that she therefore had a public law defence to the claim ...
...on March 8, 2006) and Doherty (delivered on July 30, 2008). Under phase one, where a local authority provided a caravan site under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 , the only statutory restriction on its power to terminate a licence to occupy the site by a notice to quit, and obtain a possession order on expiry of the notice, was that s.2 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 required the period of the notice to be a minimum of four weeks in cases where the licence was for residential rather than holiday use. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 provided a significantly higher level of security for mobile home occupiers, but s.5(1) of that Act excluded its operation in relation to any land occupied by a local authority as a caravan site providing accommodation for Gypsies. The original thinking may have been that caravan sites provided by local authorities under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 were intended for those who led a nomadic way of life. However, many (including ...
...travellers” by reason of their cultural background do not wish to live a nomadic existence. Local authorities regularly enter into licence agreements for the occupation of caravan sites by travellers who intend to use the site as their home. Under phase one their rights of occupation were precarious, as the case of Connors illustrated. Mr Connors and his family lived on a caravan site for a number of years. His licence was terminated by notice to quit and the Council obtained a summary possession order. The underlying reason for the Council...
20.
Stevens v Bromley LBC Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 13 December 1971
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Enforcement notices; Occupancy
Where Reported: [1972] Ch. 400; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 605; [1972] 1 All E.R. 712; 70 L.G.R. 170; (1972) 23 P. & C.R. 142; (1971) 116 S.J. 123; Times, December 15, 1971
Documents: Case Analysis  [1972] Ch. 400  [1972] 2 W.L.R. 605  (1972) 23 P. & C.R. 142  
Terms in Context:
...same day: Bambury v. Hounslow London Borough Council [1966] 2 Q.B. 204 In the ordinary case of occupation of a caravan dweller, the occupation is of the caravan on the site rather than the occupation of the land on which the caravan is situated and so he is a mere licensee. This is recognised by legislation giving occupiers protection: Caravan Sites Act 1968 In Munnich's case [1966] 1 W.L.R. 427 , 436, Lord Denning M.R. said that caravan dwellers were only licensees and never occupiers unless granted a tenancy. Danckwerts L.J., considering section 1 (3) of the Act of 1960, regarded an owner having possession and control of a site as being the occupier. A caravan dweller may be an occupier for the purposes of section 45 (3) of the Act of 1962 if he is ...
...p. 436. [Reference was made to Shell-Mex & B.P. Ltd. v. Manchester Garages Ltd. [1971] 1 W.L.R. 612 , 615.] A licence and a tenancy may march very closely together. It cannot be that a person liable to imprisonment is not a person liable to be served. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 was passed to protect persons living on sites with licences and not tenancies. The planning authority's contention that that only applies to licensees of the caravans and not of the sites is wrong: see sections 1 (1) and 3 (1) (b) By sections 4 (6) (b) and 5 (4) protection is given even during a period when there is no site licence under the Act of 1960. According to the planning authority persons can be turned out of their homes without any ...
...occupier.Cur. adv. vult. Dec. 13. The following judgments were read. SALMON L.J. The plaintiff's business consists of owning and operating a number of caravan sites. In 1964 he bought seven and three-quarter acres of land at Berry's Green Road, Single Street, near Biggin Hill in Kent. Three acres of this land was admittedly an authorised caravan site. This case concerns the remaining four and three-quarter acres which I will call "the site." There is no planning permission in existence for its use as a caravan site. The plaintiff, however, apparently under the impression that it had existing user rights, began to develop it as a caravan site. He put down a road and hard standings, and in February 1965 the first caravan appeared. Mr. Bernard Wicks took up residence in it and he still resides there. Before 406 the end of September 1965 there were 10 or 11 caravans on the site all being used as residences by their occupants. These were large caravans each with about 400 square feet of floor space, comprising separate bedrooms, a living room, a bathroom and W.C. Main water and electricity was laid on to each caravan and drains were connected which carried the sewage from each caravan to a cesspool serving the whole site. Most of the caravan dwellers made gardens on the small plots of land in the middle of which their caravans stood. The caravans were all bought by their occupiers from the plaintiff. No caravan was ever moved from one plot on the site to another and it would have been difficult if not impossible for the owner of any caravan to find any place to accommodate it were he to move it from the site. It is now common ground that the caravan dwellers were not tenants but each was the licensee of the plot upon which his caravan stood, that each paid the plaintiff £1.75 a week "rent" and that his licence could not be revoked nor could he remove his caravan from the site save by one month's notice in writing. The caravans were all used as permanent homes. The plaintiff's policy was not to serve a notice to quit upon a caravan dweller unless he failed to pay his rent or made a nuisance of himself. The evidence was that no such notice had been served on any caravan dweller on this site. The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the caravan dwellers were occupiers of their respective plots and in particular whether Mr. Bernard Wicks was the "occupier" of the plot upon which his caravan stood within the meaning of that word as used in section 45 (3) (a) of the Town and Country Planning ...
...who are the local planning authority that the land has been developed by: (a) The carrying out thereon of civil engineering operations, namely the construction of a road and hard standings for caravans, and (b) the making of a material change in the use of the land to use as a caravan site by the stationing thereon of caravans for the purposes of human habitation without the planning permission required in respect thereof under Part III of the Town ...
...paragraph (b) of section 45 (3) assists in the answer to the question whether any of the occupiers of the caravans in this case was an "occupier" of the land within the meaning of paragraph (a) of section 45 (3).It is not contended in the present case that the caravan dwellers are other than licensees - that is to say, they had a contractual right to place their caravans on the land, to have them connected to the services there provided with no doubt ancillary contractual rights, expressed or implied, of access to and from their caravans, perhaps to walk round and disport themselves over the caravan site and, in the case of Mr. Wicks, a licence to mark out an area of the land which surrounded his caravan. But none of them, not even Mr. Wicks who is in the strongest position, had any interest legal or equitable...