Cases, Legislation and Journals for (mobile home agriculture agricultural use)
Doncaster MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and th
e Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 10 April 2002
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Breach; Caravan sites; Enforcement notices; Green belt; Gypsies; Planning control
Where Reported: [2002] EWHC 808 (Admin); [2002] J.P.L. 1509; [2002] 16 E.G. 181 (C.S.); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…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. The appeals site is in the Green Belt. In …
…in paragraph 23 of the decision letter. The appeal was allowed and planning permission granted for the retention of a mobile home, relocatable building, septic tank and hard core access road, subject to, inter alia, condition (1) which had been imposed in …
…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 …
…with the ground (a) appeal under notice A and the deemed application and the section 78 appeal (for the claimant’s mobile home) saying in paragraph 3 under the heading “The main issue”: “It is not in dispute that the appellant is a …
…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. 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…
82.
Chicken farm – need for environmental impact assessment – screening opinion (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 2008, 11, 1575-1583
Subject: Planning; Environment
Keywords: Diminution in value; Environmental impact assessments; Farms; Material considerations; Planning permission
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…a High Court judge. The judicial review challenge was directed against a planning permission granted in May 2006 to Kinsale Agriculture by Aylesbury DC (the Council) for the erection of three buildings for egg production (a chicken farm), and the temporary siting of a mobile home at Aston Abbotts, Buckinghamshire. The site covered 147ha and was in an area of attractive landscape. The proposal was to …
…Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (the 1999 Regulations). The proposed chicken farm was classified as an intensive agricultural installation and as such was covered by Sch.2 to the 1999 Regulations. The Council therefore had to decide whether …
…no EIA would be required. The decision followed a screening opinion prepared by members of the relevant Council committee. Kinsale Agriculture operated other similar organic poultry farms in two other counties and another in Dinton, Aylesbury. The farm at Dinton was …
…challenge was prospectively directed against a planning permission granted on May 25 or 26, 2006 to the interested party, Kinsale Agriculture, by the Aylesbury DC for the erection of three buildings for egg production, in effect a chicken farm, and the temporary siting of a mobile home at Norduck Farm, Moat Lane, Aston Abbotts, Buckinghamshire. The site covers some 147ha. It is in an area of attractive landscape. The current use of the land is for agriculture, including the grazing of horses. The proposal is to house some 6,000 chickens. It will incorporate what is called the …
…well known, transpose the EIA Directive 85/337 into national law. The proposed chicken farm is classified as an intensive agricultural installation, though there was some doubt within the local planning authority as to whether that was an appropriate classification. If…
83.
Wychavon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 23 June 2008
Subject: Planning; Local government
Keywords: Alternative sites; Caravans; Green belt; Gypsies; Mobile homes; Planning permission; Planning policy; Planning policy guidance; Temporary permissions; Traveller sites; Very special circumstances
Where Reported: [2008] EWCA Civ 692; [2009] P.T.S.R. 19; [2009] 1 P. & C.R. 15; [2009] J.P.L. 197; Times, July 1, 2008; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis [2009] P.T.S.R. 19 [2009] 1 P. & C.R. 15 Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…Wychavon DCSecretary of State for Communities and Local Government R …
…United KingdomOfficial 23 June 2008 Sir Anthony Clarke, M.R. Carnwath, L.J. Carnwath LJ Wilson, L.J. Planning Local government Gypsies Mobile homes Planning permission Green belt Temporary permissions Caravans Very special circumstances Planning policy guidance Traveller sites Planning policy Alternative sites Temporary …
…EWHC 3209 (Admin)) quashing a decision of a planning inspector granting temporary planning permission for the continued stationing of a mobile home and touring caravan on a site in the green belt. B had acquired the green belt site and stationed a …
…worked as a landscape gardener and had developed a business breeding horses. B had applied for permission to station a mobile home and caravan on the site. Planning permission had previously been granted for a change from agricultural to equestrian use, but it was unclear whether that covered the business developed by the husband. The residential use of the site was in breach of planning control and was inappropriate development in the context of green belt policy …
…Judicial decision-makingPlanning authorities’ powers and duties Planning policy Green belt: application for permission for stationing of caravan and mobile home J.P.L. 2009, 2, 197-211 Caravans Change of use Green belt Gypsies Inappropriate development Planning policy guidance Temporary permissions The green belt: aspects of development control J.P.L. 2009, 2…
84.
Adverse possession: standing caravan
Citation: Farm Law 2001, 64, 11-12
Subject: Agriculture
Keywords: Adverse possession; Intention; Limitations; Property rights
Documents: Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…LJI0000349061FARM LAW 000000649988 Legal Journals Index 1072 Article – Journal Case Comment Adverse possession: standing caravan. Farm Law 2001, 64, 11-12 Farm Law Agriculture Adverse possession Intention Limitations Property rights Whether farmer living in mobile home since 1930s on land owned by neighbour had acquired possessory title under ss.15 and 17 of 1980 Act when…
85.
Williams v Herefordshire Council Divisional Court, 16 February 2010
Subject: Planning; Criminal law; Local government
Keywords: Compliance; Enforcement notices; Planning control; Regulatory offences
Where Reported: Unreported
Documents: Case Analysis
Terms in Context:
…The respondent local authority had served an enforcement notice on land owned by W’s wife. The notice required that two mobile homes, together with a covered walkway, be removed from the land and that associated site works also be removed. The enforcement notice further required that the land be returned to an agricultural land state. W and his wife lived in the mobile homes at the time that the notice was served. The notice was partially complied with in that one home, the covered …
…and some of the associated site works were removed but W and his wife continued to live in the remaining mobile home. An information was laid against W’s wife that she had breached the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.179(1) by not complying, as the owner of the land, with the notice by failing to remove both mobile homes and all the associated site works. An information was also laid against W alleging that contrary to s.179(4 …
…had failed to comply with the notice by continuing to carry out an activity on the land, namely the continued use of the mobile home and associated site works. The magistrates’ court convicted both W and his wife. In relation to W it found that whilst there was no express obligation under the notice to cease to use the remaining mobile home it was an implied requirement of the notice and that by continuing to live in the mobile home W had not ceased an unlawful activity as required by the notice. The questions posed for the opinion of the …
…the enforcement notice. An enforcement notice had to be clear and unambiguous so that an enforcement notice that simply required mobile homes to be removed from land could not be said to have an implied obligation that an individual who lived in one of the mobile homes had to cease to use the mobile home for residential use. The fact that the individual knew that his use of the mobile home was in breach of planning control was irrelevant. Appeal allowed. It was clear that there were two types of enforcement …
…enforcement notice, Miller-Mead applied. Whilst anyone reading the enforcement notice could not be left in any doubt that the mobile homes had to be removed the enforcement notice did not contain any specific obligation to cease to use the mobile homes. Accordingly, it was not open to the magistrates’ court to imply an obligation on W to cease to use the remaining mobile home. The fact that W knew that his use of the mobile home was in breach of planning control was irrelevant. It was appropriate to answer the first question posed in the negative…
86.
Chiltern DC v Webb Queen’s Bench Division, 12 July 2007
Subject: Planning; Human rights
Keywords: Breach; Enforcement notices; Green belt; Injunctions; Travelling showpeople
Where Reported: [2007] EWHC 1686 (QB); [2008] J.P.L. 1323; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…of green belt land owned by three of its members. F had applied for planning permission for a change of use from agricultural to showmen’s permanent quarters incorporating hard surfaced plots for mobile homes. The application was refused and F’s appeal dismissed. F moved caravans, plant and equipment onto the land and made a …
…and a stop notice prohibiting works involved with hardstanding and subsequently issued another enforcement notice relating to the change of use from agricultural to mixed use. On F’s appeal the enforcement notices were upheld with a period of compliance of nine months. F failed to comply with the enforcement notices and thereafter submitted an application for temporary planning permission for a change of use for a period of three years. That application, which was not determined for some months, was refused as F had …
…but suspended until the determination of an appeal against a refusal of a planning application for temporary change of land use.Judgment accordingly. The grant of the injunction sought would interfere with F’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights …
…8) s.183Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) s.187B Application for planning permission for change of use from agricultural to showmen’s permanent quarters J.P.L. 2008, 9, 1323-1336 Injunctions Planning control Planning policy Suspension Temporary permissions Traveller sites Travelling…
87.
Blizzard v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 30 October 2000
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural land; Change of use; Enforcement notices; Planning control; Planning units
Where Reported: Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…the site are a number of single storey buildings which apparently date back to a time when the land was used intensively as a poultry farm. There are various other structures on the land. Most of the buildings are used for storage or as workshops, many of them to do with the motor trade. Most of the space between the buildings is used for the parking of vehicles associated with the uses carried on in the buildings. Further vehicles are stored elsewhere on the site. The enforcement notice alleged a breach of planning control in that without planning permission there had been a change of use of the site from agricultural use to a mixed use: “… for the purposes of agriculture, the extension of a residential curtilage, the stationing and storage of vehicles, car valeting, car restoration, car servicing and car repairs, the storage of caravans and the stationing of a mobile home used for residential purposes, the making and storage of garden ornaments and lawnmower repairs and commercial uses including storage falling within Class B1 and B8 of the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order 1987 The appeal to the Secretary of State in respect of that notice was brought under sections 174 …
…should explain that the Inspector decided that the commencement date for considering whether there had been a material change of use was, so far as relevant, February 1982, ten years before an enforcement notice was first issued in respect of the site. The only two non-agricultural uses of the land, which the appellant claimed to have commenced before February 1982, were the occupation of Building E by …
…building in connection with his business.The Inspector found at paragraph 25 of the decision: “As to the motor engineering use in Building E, even if the then tenant’s affidavit is accepted without question I do not consider that, as a matter of fact and degree, such use of half of one of the many buildings on this 2.5 ha site amounted to a material change in the use of the site as a whole. I conclude therefore that any use of the land for the storage, repair or maintenance of motor vehicles prior to February 1982 was insignificant and not substantial, and that the change to the present mixed use of the land took place after that date.” The submission made in relation to that passage is that the Inspector failed to consider whether the use of Building E for the purposes of the motor engineer’s business constituted the creation of a new and separate planning …
…if viewed as a separate point.I move to ground 2. The background to this is that for the remaining uses enforced against the relevant start date was October 1985, ten years before the first enforcement notice relevant to those other uses. The evidence before the Inspector as to the other uses of the land before October 1985 included evidence that Building C had been used in part for the manufacture of garden ornaments, and in part by an air-conditioning firm since 1983. But from August 1985 Building A had been used by a carpenter as a workshop and, from 1983 onwards, Building V, together with a smaller shared Building N, had been used for the storage of materials by a builder. In paragraph 28 of the decision the Inspector summarised his findings and conclusion as follows: “The facts show that the garden ornament use may have begun in 1983, although there are no records of rental payments prior to 1988. The B1 uses comprise the manufacture of garden furniture and sheds, picture framing, fabrication of air-conditioning equipment, carpentry and furniture manufacture. Of these the air-conditioning use is said to have begun in 1983, but on the same informal basis as the garden ornament use, and the carpenter began to use Building A as a workshop in August 1985, although again there are no payment records dating from that time. The B8 uses comprise storage for a general handyman’s business, storage for a building firm, furniture storage and storage for the Chalfont Show Committee. Of these the storage use by the building firm may have begun in 1983, although the appellant’s records show that the use began in 1988. There is no claim that the other uses began before October 1985. My conclusion is that the garden ornament, air-conditioning, carpentry and builder’s storage uses may have been initiated in a small way before October 1985. However the onus is on the appellant to establish …
…is that the Secretary of State has provided inadequate reasons as to why that conclusion has been reached, that the uses in question did not constitute a material change in the use of the land. There being evidence as to uses being carried on by separate businesses in four separate buildings prior to the relevant date, it is not explained why…
88.
Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 asp 3 (Scottish Act)
Part 11 MAILLS AND DUTIES, SEQUESTRATION FOR RENT AND LANDLORD’S HYPOTHEC
Landlord’s hypothec and sequestration for rent
s. 208 Abolition of sequestration for rent and restriction of landlord’s hypothec
Version in force from: April 1, 2008 to present (version 1 of 1)
Annotations available
Terms in Context:
…3)The landlord’s hypothec no longer arises in relation to property which is kept— (a) in a dwellinghouse; (b) on agricultural land; or (c) on a croft. (4) It no longer arises in relation to property which is owned by a …
…to a company voluntary arrangement, within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) (13) In subsection (3) above— “agricultural land” has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (c.55) “croft” has the same meaning as in section 3(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 (c.44) ; and “dwellinghouse” includes— (a) a mobile home or other place used as a dwelling; and (b) any other structure or building used in connection with the dwellinghouse…
89.
Carter v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC Lands Tribunal, 28 April 1988
Subject: Rates
Keywords: Compensation; Decisions; Lands Tribunal
Where Reported: (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 480; [1988] 3 P.L.R. 6; [1988] R.V.R. 241; [1988] E.G. 84 (C.S.)
Documents: Case Analysis (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 480
Terms in Context:
…30, 1986, Mr. Carter made 15 applications for planning permission, one for each enclosure. Each application sought planning permission for “agricultural buildings for: livestock, forage and equipment to be used by an occupier carrying on a farming enterprise on the site.” Each application identified the location of the particular enclosure by reference to a plan, defined its area, stated that its existing use was agricultural, stated that the site would be enclosed by a boundary fence and that surface water would be disposed of to …
…August 8, 1986, Mr. Carter advertised the land or part of it, for sale or lease with outline permission for agricultural barns. The advertisement was headed “land—paddocks—small holdings” and stated: Eight only remaining from 1.7–8 acres, fenced with water supply, in beautiful countryside adjoining Windsor Forest and overlooking Thames Valley. These are on agricultural land and are suitable for 484 the establishment of viable agricultural enterprises. Some agricultural enterprises require a mobile home for constant care of livestock. A number of persons responded to the advertisement including the witnesses, Mr. Martin Peter Killoran …
…under class VI.The relevant paragraph of class VI is paragraph 1 which is as follows: The carrying out on agricultural land having an area of more than one acre and comprised in an agricultural unit of building or engineering operations … requisite for the use of that land for the purposes of agriculture …, so long as: (a) the ground area covered by a building erected pursuant to this permission does not, either by …
…than movable structures) or 489 works is within 25 metres of the metal portion of a trunk or classified road. “Agricultural land” and “agricultural unit” have the meanings respectively assigned to those expressions in the Agriculture Act 1947 (Art. 2). In section 109 of that Act, “agricultural land” is defined as meaning land used for agriculture which is so used for the purpose of a trade or business or which is designated by the Minister for the purposes of that section. In the same section “agricultural unit” is defined as meaning land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes including buildings and lands of the kind referred to in section 109(2) Mr. Stephenson accepted that the reference land as at October 31, 1986 was used for agriculture and was agricultural land. He submitted that the agricultural unit was the entirety of the reference land. In the hands of Mr. Carter it was farmed as one unit. It had never been used as 15 plots and never formed 15 agricultural units. Mr. Stephenson referred to the decision of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court in Burdle v. Secretary of State for …
…the purposes of class VI the land in question must be more than one acre in area and must be agricultural land as defined in section 109 of the Act 1947 and be comprised in an agricultural unit as so defined. The words “requisite for use of that land for the purposes of agriculture” referred back, not to the agricultural unit, but to the agricultural land. Each enclosure was agricultural land and was used for the purposes of a trade or business and was comprised in an agricultural unit (namely the entirety of the reference land). Further, Mr. Fookes said, it was not possible to argue that section…
90.
R. (on the application of Rafferty) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 05 November 2008
Subject: Planning; Human rights
Keywords: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Gypsies; Planning permission; Planning policy; Proportionality; Right to respect for private and family life; Temporary permissions; Traveller sites
Where Reported: [2008] EWHC 2937 (Admin); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…inspector appointed by the respondent secretary of state dismissing their appeal against a refusal of planning permission to change the use of an area of land from agricultural to residential.R were two gypsy travellers who purchased land within an area designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, intending to develop the land for the use of two mobile homes and as a site for touring caravans. Their renewal of an application for planning permission to the local authority was …
…A planning inspector’s decision to dismiss an appeal by gypsy travellers against the refusal of planning permission to change the use of land within an area of outstanding natural beauty from agricultural to residential use did not interfere with the gypsies’ right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human …
…of the land from harm. As R’s family and private life was being enjoyed elsewhere, a refusal to change planning use of the site did not imply an interference either with their life as a family or with their entitlement to…