Applications for planning permission for retention of mobile home and permanent dwelling

112-mobilehome-logcabin-kithomes

Applications for planning permission for retention of mobile home and permanent dwelling - applications refused (Case Comment) Citation: J.P.L. 1999, Dec, 1096-1106 Subject: Planning Keywords: Agricultural land; Houses; Legitimate expectation; Planning permission; Planning policy guidance Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract Terms in Context: ...LJI00003004891168 Case Comment JPL Journal of Planning & Environment Law 1999 Dec Applications for planning permission for retention of mobile home and permanent dwelling - applications refused J.P.L. 1999, Dec, 1096-1106 Planning Agricultural land Houses Legitimate expectation Planning permission Planning policy guidance Boyle v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the ... ...County Council's land agent differed from that of ADAS in the light of which the Applicant withdrew his application. The mobile home was retained on the land and, following the threat of enforcement proceedings, the Applicant applied for the retention of the mobile home for an agricultural worker for a period of three years. He also re-submitted his application for a permanent dwelling. Both applications were ... ...different approach. The Applicant also submitted that the Inspector was wrong to treat the application for the retention of the mobile home as relating to a three year period commencing at the expiry of the 1992 permission. In addition, the Applicant contended that the Inspector's conclusion that the main issue in both appeals was whether there was sufficient agricultural and/or rural justification to warrant the proposals, was a misstatement of the issues. The particular criticisms were that the Inspector failed to recognise that PPG 7 applied different considerations to applications for temporary and permanent agricultural dwellings and she was therefore wrong to treat them on the same basis, in particular because the application for temporary permission was made on the basis that equestrian activities were to be discontinued and replaced by further agricultural activities. Held, dismissing the application:

1. Any legitimate expectation that the Applicant had that his application for a permanent dwelling ... ...not in accordance with that of ADAS. In the light of it the Applicant withdrew his application. He retained the mobile home on the land, and, following the threat of enforcement proceedings by the Council, on November 1, 1996 he applied for planning permission for the retention of the mobile home for an agricultural worker for a period of three years. On June 26, 1997 he resubmitted his application for a permanent dwelling. Both ... ...from consideration of all the representations made, I consider the main issue in both appeals is whether there is sufficient agricultural and/or rural justification to warrant the proposals in this area of countryside.”The Applicant contends that this was a misstatement of the issues, in relation both to the application for the mobile home and in relation to the application for the permanent dwelling. I will return to this. In paragraphs 4 and 5... 42. Jarmain v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.1) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 12 April 2000 Subject: Planning Keywords: Enforcement notices; Mobile homes; Time limits Where Reported: [2000] 2 P.L.R. 126; [2000] J.P.L. 1063; Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...JarmainSecretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.1) ROGER RAYMOND JARMAIN V (1) SECRETARY ... ...April 2000Roch, L.J. Roch LJ Brooke, L.J. Brooke LJ Sedley, L.J. Sedley LJ (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Enforcement notices Mobile homes Time limits enforcement notices time limits breach of planning control service of enforcement notices J farmed a smallholding of 28 hectares and obtained a limited permission for a mobile home on the site in 1983. The permission was renewed on three subsequent occasions and then refused in 1995. Meanwhile in 1993, J had constructed a permanent single storey dwelling at the site in place of the mobile home. In 1996 the local authority served an enforcement notice which was subsequently withdrawn as it required removal of the mobile home which was no longer on site. A replacement notice was issued in 1998 requiring removal of the dwelling. J lodged ... ...served on him in relation to his single storey dwelling on land where he had only limited permission for a mobile home, was valid. He argued that the breach of planning control complained of in the second notice was a different breach ... ...s.171B(4)(b) referred to the physical situation on the land, and that whilst the section could not be used to cover two different developments, it could be used to cover the same actual breach, which had been described in two different ways.Held, dismissing the appeal, that one ... ...and family lifeStatutory interpretation Temporary stop notices Time limits No more pettifoggery. E.G. 2000, 0043, 179 Enforcement notices Immunities Mobile homes Time limits Temporary planning permission for stationing of mobile home - application for certificate of lawfulness refused - enforcement notice issued and withdrawn - second enforcement notice issued. J.P.L. 2000, Oct, 1063-1076 Enforcement notices Immunities Mobile homes Time limits Pettifogging and enforcement J.P.L. 2000, Jul, 664-665, Enforcement notices Immunities Mobile homes Time limits 2000095148 723... 43. Temporary planning permission for stationing of mobile home - application for certificate of lawfulness refused - enforcement notice issued and withdrawn - second enforcement notice issued (Case Comment) Citation: J.P.L. 2000, Oct, 1063-1076 Subject: Planning Keywords: Enforcement notices; Immunities; Mobile homes; Time limits Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract Terms in Context: ...which he acquired in 1981. When first acquired the appellant was employed by the Post Office and the land was used together with an additional 26 hectares under gentlemen's agreements for grazing of dairy goats, sheep and poultry. At the outset the appellant applied for planning permission for a mobile home on the land which application was refused by the Welwyn Hatfield District Council (“the Council”) but allowed on appeal in 1983, following which a mobile home was bought onto the land. The permission being limited to a period of three years there followed a series of ... ...by the Post Office. The appellant and his wife farmed the land together with a further 26 hectares which they used under gentlemen's agreements, there being no agricultural tenancy nor even a licence. The land was used for grazing dairy goats and sheep and for poultry. At the outset, the appellant applied for permission to have a mobile home on the land. The Local Planning Authority, the Welwyn Hatfield District Council refused that application but it was allowed on ... ...the appellants home. In fact in March and April 1993 the appellant had changed his accommodation from that of a mobile home to a permanent single storey dwelling. That had occurred in this way: the mobile home so far used by the appellant and his family, his family being his wife and daughter, was in a poor state of repair. In fact, the appellants wife and daughter had left that mobile home and started to live in a smaller caravan which had been brought onto the land, J.P.L. 1065 1065 without planning ... ...joints. I also placed 7 by 2 timber beams across the width of the entire unit and erected a roof, using boarding and felt, thus encasing the mobile home. This work was finished on March 29. By this date, I had also virtually completed dismantling the mobile home which included cutting up and removing the chassis. I retrieved what material I could for reuse in the construction. 10 ... ...The breach of planning control alleged was “On 13.3.1992 Planning Permission … was granted for the retention of a mobile home on the land for agricultural use, being renewal of temporary planning permissions granted in 1985 … and 1988 … subject to conditions. One of the conditions (Condition No. 1) is that the permission shall be for a limited period only, expiring on March 31, 1995, when the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the site restored to its former conditions in all respects … It appears to the council that the condition has not been complied with because the mobile home remains on the land following expiry of the said planning condition.” The notice went on to indicate that what the appellant was required to do was to remove the mobile home from the land, within a period of six months after the notice took effect. The notice was to take effect... 44. Jarmain v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.2) Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), 18 December 2001 Subject: Planning Keywords: Accounts; Enforcement notices; Smallholdings Where Reported: [2001] EWHC Admin 1140; [2002] 1 P.L.R. 105; [2002] 3 E.G. 124 (C.S.); Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...enterprise and livestock was brought onto the farm in 1982. There was an application for planning permission to station a mobile home on the holding in 1982, which was finally granted in January 1983. A mobile home was brought to the site and in June 1983 was occupied by the applicant and at times by his wife and daughter. Other buildings were erected on the site for agricultural purposes and work was carried out to improve the agricultural land. Until 1986 the applicant had been working as an employee of the Post Office, as well as carrying out ... ...April 1993 and the date of application exceeded the minimum period of four years necessary for the building and its use as a dwelling to be lawful. The application was refused by the council on 29 September 1997. An appeal was lodged on 11 March 1998. The enforcement notice relating to the mobile home was formally withdrawn on 3 March 1998, and a new enforcement notice, the subject of the appeal before the inspector ... ...whether the grant of permission, in whatever terms it may be granted, would, because of the uncertain future of the agricultural activity, threaten to produce in the future a non-conforming residential use that would pass with the land — a use that had lost its agricultural justification. In answering that question it is relevant to consider whether this very activity by these applicants is likely to ... ...there for an identifiable purpose: to ensure that any residential planning permission is both ancillary and proportionate to a true agricultural use. In most cases profitability will be a very good indicator of this. If it is an employee who is to ... ...notice. The appraisal concluded that the output from your holding had improved significantly since 1995 and the justification for an agricultural dwelling remained sustainable under both the functional and financial criteria in PPG7. 22. The use of gross margins is a recognised farm business management technique advocated by the Land Use Planning Unit of MAFF. While it is evident from the textbook statistical information submitted on goat and sheep dairying that... 45. Tewkesbury BC v Keeley Queen's Bench Division, 12 November 2004 Subject: Planning Keywords: Building operations; Buildings; Development Where Reported: [2004] EWHC 2594 (QB); [2005] J.P.L. 831; Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...There have been planning problems in relation to the land for a long time, going back to 1988. Its lawful use is as agricultural land. It lies within a Special Landscape Area in the Council's development plan. On 22 July 2003 the Council passed ... ...issued on 13 February 2004. On that day Cox J. granted an interim injunction restraining him from bringing any additional mobile homes or caravans onto the land and from allowing any residential use save in one caravan (which was that occupied by Mrs Adams and her children). On 23 February the injunction was continued by Hunt J. with a variation as to residential use permitting Mr Burns to continue to reside in a shed. The trial of the action took place on 3 and ... ...Mr Keeley has demonstrated to the Council.Mr Keeley stated that he planned to have one building (the word he used) on each small holding as a multifunctional agricultural building for the benefit of the tenant farmer. It would be used for storage of animal feed such as hay and straw, and machinery, and as housing for chickens. He said that if they were used for keeping chickens they could be moved to prevent the ground round them becoming excessively soiled. He stated that it was his intention to use them to replace the caravans which are on site and which are now, though not originally, used for agricultural purposes such as the keeping of chickens. In September of this year Mr Keeley said that he adapted one part ... ...onto the site, was that this constituted development because it involved ‘the making of any of [a] material change of use of … land’, because use of the land was being changed from agricultural use to use for storage. There does not seem to be any answer to this second part of the Council's case. However, as ... ...Wealden District Council v Secretary of State (1987) 56 P & CR 286 at 291 . It may involve a change of use, but that is another matter. Change of use does not arise here because the shed is used for agricultural purposes, which is the existing use of the site. A caravan is defined in law to include a mobile home (which expression I use as it is used in ordinary speech), because ‘caravan’ is defined as ‘any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of... 46. R. (on the application of Rafferty) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 July 2009 Subject: Planning; Human rights Keywords: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Gypsies; Planning permission;

Proportionality; Right to respect for private and family life; Traveller sites Where Reported: [2009] EWCA Civ 809; [2009] P.T.S.R. 1708; [2010] J.P.L. 485; [2009] 31 E.G. 72 (C.S.); Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis [2009] P.T.S.R. 1708 Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...BakerSmith LJJ 2009 July 29 Human rights—Right to respect for private and family life—Planning control—Gipsies purchasing agricultural land refused permission by local authority for change to residential use with caravans—Gipsies not living on land at time of planning application—Planning inspector's assessment that proposal causing unacceptable harm ... ...Pt I, art 8 The two applicants, who were gipsies living in caravans with the second applicant's two children, purchased agricultural land in North Somerset in 2002 and applied for planning permission to change the permitted use of the land from agricultural to residential use for the siting of their caravans. The local planning authority refused the application and the applicants appealed to the Secretary ... ...unreported) 26 June 2001, ECtHRAPPEAL from Pitchford J The applicants, Hilda Rafferty and Bessie Jones, purchased a site on agricultural land at Reeves Ground, off Banwell Road, North Somerset in 2002. Their application for planning permission for change of use from agricultural to siting of two mobile homes and two touring caravans for their families was refused by North Somerset council on 29 May 2005. The council refused their fresh application for change of use on 21 July 2006. The Secretary of State's planning inspector dismissed their appeal against the council's refusal on 12 July ... ...a notice dated 21 July 2006. The inquiry hearing took place on 15 May 2007. Planning permission for change of use of the land to the siting of two mobile homes and two touring caravans had been refused in June 2005 with no resultant appeal, and an enforcement notice was upheld on appeal in December 2006 requiring cessation of the use of the land for storage purposes and removal of all caravans brought onto the land in connection with the unauthorised use. The section 288 application against which the present appeal from Pitchford J lies was made on 4 November 2008. I ... ...to a large extent inseparable. “Home” includes not only the bricks and mortar of a fixed property but also a mobile home. What is being disrespected is the applicants' right to live in a home (in this case a mobile home) on land which they own. It is, as Mr Watkinson put it in argument, as much a lack of respect... 47. R. (on the application of Hall Hunter Partnership) v First Secretary of State Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), 15 December 2006 Subject: Planning Keywords: Agricultural land; Change of use; Enforcement notices; Mobile homes; Permanence; Permitted development; Planning permission; Statutory interpretation Where Reported: [2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin); [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 5; [2007] J.P.L. 1023; Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 5 Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...R. (on the application of Hall Hunter Partnership)First Secretary of State R (ON ... ...2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin)UKEW England and Wales Official 15 December 2006 Sullivan, J. Sullivan J (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Agricultural land Mobile homes Enforcement notices Permanence Permitted development Statutory interpretation Change of use Planning permission Planning permission Agricultural land Polytunnels as development Change of use for caravans Enforcement notices The appellant farming partnership (H) appealed against two enforcement notices issued by the second respondent local authority (W) in regard to the use of a farm owned by H. Enforcement notice A related to the change of use from agriculture to the stationing of 45 caravans on the site for the accommodation of seasonal workers, and notice B to the ... ...they were not permitted development within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Sch.2 as its use of the word "operations" should be the ordinary and natural one, which would include farming operations; (3) the inspector had erred in concluding that the use of the farm for the stationing of the caravans was not permitted development by virtue of Sch.2 Part 5 ... ...distinction drawn between development by the carrying out of operations and development by the making of a material change of use, Parkes v Secretary of State for the Environment Parkes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1308 considered. In the instant case, the inspector had been correct to characterise the activities as a use of land, not operations. (3) On the evidence, it was difficult to fault the conclusion of the inspector that the relevant land remained designed and fitted out for use as a caravan site, was occupied by caravans for a substantial part of any one year beyond mere seasonal use and would not lose its character as a caravan site merely by their being removed for a period. Appeal dismissed ... ...of outstanding natural beautyDevelopment Fruit Planning permission Polytunnels Sustainability A plastic blot on the landscape. E.G. 2007, 0707, 140 Agricultural buildings Development Permitted development Planning permission 2011205063 724... 48. South Bedfordshire DC v Price Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 05 May 2006 Subject: Planning; Civil procedure Keywords: Caravans; Committal orders; Green belt; Injunctions; Mobile homes; Travellers Where Reported: [2006] EWCA Civ 493; [2006] J.P.L. 1805; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 607; Times, May 22, 2006; Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...South Bedfordshire DCPrice SOUTH BEDFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL V JOHN PRICE & ORS [2006] EWCA Civ 493 [2006] J.P.L. 1805 ... ...Latham, L.J.Latham LJ Lloyd, L.J. Lloyd LJ (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Civil procedure Caravans Committal orders Green belt Injunctions Mobile homes Travellers protected areas green belt injunctions suspending committal orders merits of pending planning appeal The appellants (P) appealed against committal ... ...an injunction restraining breaches of planning control ([2005] EWHC 2031, (2005) 102(40) L.S.G. 28). P lived in caravans and mobile homes on land in the green belt the use of which for residential purposes was in breach of planning control. After a public inquiry, planning permission and P's appeal against an enforcement notice had been refused. P had been given 18 months to cease residential use of the land but had remained in occupation after that period had expired. The local authority had obtained an injunction ... ...and RemediesSub-section S - The implementation of suspended sentences Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) s.187B Use of site for caravans and mobile homes - injunction - suspension J.P.L. 2006, Dec, 1805-1816 Breach of injunction Caravans Enforcement notices Green belt Mobile homes Suspended committal orders Travellers Planning and environment focus (August) P.L.J. 2006, 174, 14-15 Agricultural buildings Caravans Certificates of lawful development Change of use Enforcement notices Houses Inspections Planning applications Planning conditions Planning inspectors Time limits Gypsy and traveller law update: Part 2 (August ... ...rightsInjunctions Possession claims Security of tenure Stop notices Wales Travellers: planning permission P.L.C. 2006, 17(7), 51 Caravans Gypsies Mobile homes Planning permission Travellers Planning and environment focus (August) P.L.J. 2006, 174, 14-15 Agricultural buildings Caravans Certificates of lawful development Change of use Enforcement notices Houses Inspections Planning applications Planning conditions Planning inspectors Time limits Gypsy and traveller law update: Part 2 (August... 49. Lothian Borders and Angus Cooperative Society Ltd v Scottish Borders Council Court of Session (Outer House), 18 December 1998 Subject: Planning Keywords: Bias; Planning authorities; Planning gain; Scotland Where Reported: [1999] 2 P.L.R. 19; 1999 G.W.D. 6-316; Times, March 10, 1999; Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...building consent, to demolish old stables and replace them with kennels. Thereafter planning permission was twice refused for stationing a mobile home and constructing vehicular access on the site. In 1993 permission was refused for the erection of new kennels, failing compliance with conditions of the earlier permission. The cattery has had a certificate of lawful use since May 1996 and has had the benefit since August 1996 of conditional consent for access and parking provision. On 22nd September 1995, however, the predecessor local planning authority served six enforcement notices. Using the tabulation adopted throughout these proceedings, they were to the following effect: Notice A required permanent cessation within three months of the use of a shed as an office, this being a material change in use. Notice B required removal within six months of a caravan used for residential purposes within the previous ten years. Notice C required removal within six months of a mobile home used for residential purposes within the previous ten years. Notice D required the demolition within six months of buildings (kennels) which had been erected and were unrelated to the permitted agricultural use of the land. Notice E required cessation within four months of use of the land for kennels within the previous ten years. Notice F required removal within three months of an earth embankment unrelated to agricultural use. The applicant appealed against all six notices, and the Secretary of State duly appointed an inspector, Ms Maureen Taylor, to ... ...the Inquiry the caravan did not appear to be occupied for human habitation, notwithstanding that part of it was in use as a rest room. She went on to hold in paragraph 15 of the decision letter that the Appellant did not deny that it had been in residential use when the notice was served. But the evidence appears to show that there had been no change in the nature or degree of residential use, namely use as a mess room or rest room. I cannot find any acceptance in the passages that I have read or elsewhere that the Appellant accepted any greater degree of residential use. In that connection it is quite clear from the Inspector's finding that at the date of the service of the notice there was a residential mobile home on the appeal site, so there was no apparent need to use the caravan as a residence. In these circumstances, I find it impossible to accept the Inspector's conclusion on ground (c ... ...that I have read and which both parties invited me to look at. Miss Lieven raised no objection to the use of that material. Indeed, she herself referred to it, and it seems to me that the reliance that she placed on the report to members on the application made in 1992 for a mobile home does not provide a basis for the Inspector's conclusion as to the residential use of the caravan at the date the notice was served. By that time there was already a mobile home on the site as well as a caravan. In my judgment, this is a matter on which the decision letter ... ...made it presentationally, if not legally, difficult to assert in the same hearing that the caravan was not in residential use at the time of the notice. The ground (c) appeal on notice B was accordingly based, not on a denial of residential use at the time of the notice, but on an assertion that the caravan's use, which included at least occasional 24-hour use, was ancillary to the cattery. The further submission was then that if this occasional use amounted to a residential use, such use had been going on for more than ten years, so that the ground (d) challenge would be made out. It ... ...the site visit). Nor is it sufficient to hold that the applicant had expressly accepted no greater degree of residential use than this. These were the very things that the inspector had to evaluate for herself. Nor did the presence of a residential mobile home on the site shut out the possibility of the caravan being used residentially. Once it was conceded that there had been at least occasional 24-hour use of the caravan, it was open to the inspector to conclude that the main use had at the time of the notice been residential, unless cogent evidence were to show her that such use was truly limited to use in occasional crises and that such use alone did not amount to residential use. Manifestly she was not so persuaded. I am also unable to accept the judge's finding that the decision letter is... 50. Samuel v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 16 March 1999 Subject: Planning Keywords: Caravans; Enforcement notices; Evidence; Planning permission Where Reported: [1999] P.L.C.R. 356; Official Transcript Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context: ...Sedley, L.J.Sedley LJ (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Caravans Enforcement notices Evidence Planning permission enforcement notices evidence caravan in residential use at time of notice S operated a cattery and kennels. In 1990, outline planning permission was granted by the local planning authority to demolish old stables and replace them with kennels. Two applications for permission to station a mobile home on the site were refused. In 1995, enforcement notices were served on S, including notice B, which required the removal of a caravan used for residential purposes within the previous 10 years, and notice D, requiring the demolition of buildings erected for use as kennels. S appealed against the notices on the ground that the caravan had not been in residential use at the date of the enforcement notice and so there was no breach of planning control. In the alternative, S argued that by the date of the notice the residential use had continued for more than 10 years and so no enforcement action could be taken. Having inspected the site and ... ...the inspector dismissed S's appeals against both notices. As regards the caravan, the inspector found that it was presently in use as a staff mess room, but that the balance of probabilities was such that it had been used for residential purposes when the notice was served as S had not denied such use at the time. During the inquiry, S accepted that the caravan was in occasional 24 hour use. In relation to notice D, the inspector held the kennels to be an inappropriate use of the land and dismissed the appeal. S's appeal against the inspector's conclusions in relation to notice B was upheld ... ...5 C.L. 516), on the basis that the inspector was not entitled to find that the caravan was in residential use at the time the notice was served on the evidence. The judge relied on the existence of a mobile home on the site which, in his view, meant that there was no need to use the caravan for residential purposes. S appealed, arguing that the since the presence of the caravan was lawful the inspector ... ...not entitled, in the exercise of her planning judgment, to reach a conclusion that the caravan was not in residential use at the time of the enforcement notice was served, but had been so used in the past, as such a finding meant that the available evidence was incapable of supporting the inspector's inference or... ...finding. The fact that the evidence showed that there had been no change in the nature or degree of residential use was not enough for this purpose. Neither was it sufficient that S did not accept any greater degree of residential use than that, since those were matters that the inspector was required to evaluate for herself. The fact that a mobile home was situated on the site did not mean that the caravan could not also be used for residential purposes. With the benefit of S's concession that the caravan had occasionally been used on a 24 hour basis, the inspector was entitled to conclude that the main use at the time notice B was served had been residential, in the absence of strong evidence that such use was very occasional and by itself did not amount to a residential use. It had been open to S to demonstrate these matters to the inspector's satisfaction and he had manifestly failed to...