Mobile Home Case Law 3
acclesfield BC v McMah
on Queen’s Bench Division, 9 May 2001
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Enforcement notices; Established use; Injunctions; Mobile homes; Permitted development; Planning
Where Reported: Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…of 13 to 20 July 1995 Mr and Mrs McMahon brought onto the land they had retained a double unit mobile home. They proceeded to live in it. Photographs show a comparatively substantial single storey building with a pitched roof and little sign of any mobility. No planning permission was applied for. Mrs McMahon stated in her evidence that she had a conversation on site in June 1995 with a council officer concerning moving the caravan which was then on site. She said that it was the idea of Mr McMahon and herself that the existing caravan should go and be replaced by the mobile home positioned elsewhere on the land. The officer, she said, saw no problem. I am satisfied that this visit was …
…longer required. He stated that there was a serious breach of planning control as well as an offence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 On 9 November Mr Jones replied that the six years referred to the mobile home and that the caravan had been there since spring 1982. The reference to 6 years for the mobile home was a nonsense: it had arrived the previous year. Mr McMahon stated in his evidence to me that Mr Jones had no instructions from him in respect of the caravan and that he had no idea from where Mr Jones had got the six years referred to in his letter of 18 October 1995. He also said that he had never told Mr James that the caravan had been there for six years. Six years would mean that it arrived on site in 1989. That was the …
…inspector at the hearing of Mr McMahon’s appeal in 1999 — to which I will come.I have referred to ‘the caravan’ and to the ‘mobile home’ as a matter of convenience in distinguishing between them, and will continue to do so. A caravan is , of course, a mobile home, and the legislation relating to caravans applies to mobile homes. On 17 April 1996 Mr and Mrs McMahon applied to the Council for planning permission for the rebuilding of …
…were brought by the Council in the magistrates court against Mr McMahon under the 1960 Act in connection with the caravan. On 7 June 1996 Mr Carter sent to the Council an application for a Caravan Site Licence to cover both the caravan and the mobile home. His letter stated that the caravan had been in residential use since 1983 and that Mr McMahon would shortly be applying for a Certificate of Lawful Use. He stated that the mobile home would be the subject of an application for planning permission. On 24 June Mr Carter wrote to say that …
…Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rightsand Article 1 of the first Protocol. The case that the mobile was a lawful use of land because there had been a residential caravan on site since 1982 depends upon whether that fact as to the caravan can be established. For Mr Park accepted that, if a lawful use was established for the caravan and the caravan then went, the lawful use remained to cover the mobile home even though it was larger and in a different position. The Council had investigated the facts as to the original caravan in some depth in 1996 and on 31 January 1997 issued its determination that it had been brought onto the…
Somerset CC v Isaacs Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 24 May 2002
Subject: Landlord and tenant
Keywords: eviction; landlord and tenant; legality of eviction from exempted sites; security of tenure
Where Reported: [2002] EWHC 1014 (Admin); [2002] E.H.L.R. 18; [2002] 25 E.G. 151 (C.S.); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…and tenantlandlord and tenant eviction security of tenure legality of eviction from exempted sites eviction security of tenure gypsy caravan on local authority land under licence legality of eviction from exempted sites compatibility with human rights The local authority brought proceedings for possession of a plot occupied by I, a gypsy living in a caravan, and I counterclaimed on the basis that his eviction was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8 and Art.14. The local authority had granted I a licence to occupy his caravan on land owned by it and sought to revoke the licence after I had threatened a local authority employee with violence. I argued that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s.4(6) and the Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.5 were incompatible with Art.8 and Art.14. He maintained that he was precluded from protection under the 1968 Act because his caravan was on local authority land and under the 1983 Act because the site was an “exempted site” for those purposes …
…proportionate response to social need and did not amount to infringement of European Convention on Human Rights Arts 8, 14 – Caravan Sites Act 1968 s 4(6) – Mobile Homes Act 1983 s 5(1).Held, dismissing the counterclaim, that the exempting provisions under the 1968 and 1983 Acts …
…E.G. 194 (C.S.); (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 365; [2006] N.P.C. 29; Times, March 10, 2006; Independent, March 14, 2006; Official TranscriptCaravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part .1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part .2 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.2 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.4(6) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6 Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part I Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part II Children Act 1989 Part III Control of Development Act 1960 Criminal Justice and Public Order …
…Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.14Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5(1) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) Rent Act 1965 A tale of two trespassers: reconsidering the impact of the Human Rights …
…Right to respect for homeSecurity of tenure Gypsy and traveller law update (August) Legal Action 2004, Aug, 13-18 Caravan sites Eviction Gypsies Planning permission Police powers and duties Security of tenure Moving on S.J. 2003, 147(26), 766-767 Discrimination Gypsies Planning control Right to respect for private and family life Human rights. J.L.G.L. 2002, 5(5), D97 Caravan sites Human rights Local authorities powers and duties Possession proceedings Human rights. J.H.L. 2002, 5(5), D81 Caravan sites Human rights Local authorities powers and duties Possession proceedings 2002274967 724…
33.
Wyre Forest DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Allen’s Caravans (Estates) House of Lords, 23 February 1990
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Planning permission
Where Reported: [1990] 2 A.C. 357; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 517; [1990] 1 All E.R. 780; (1990) 60 P. & C.R. 195; [1990] 2 P.L.R. 95
Documents: Case Analysis [1990] 2 A.C. 357 [1990] 2 W.L.R. 517 (1990) 60 P. & C.R. 195
Terms in Context:
…Wyre Forest DCSecretary of State for the Environment and Allen’s Caravans (Estates) WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL V SEC.OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT & ANR [1990] 2 A.C. 357 [1990] 2 W.L.R. 517 …
…Lord GriffithsGriffiths, Lord Lord Oliver of Aylmerton Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Lord Lowry Lowry, Lord (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Caravan sites Planning permission Enforcement notice relating to chalet whether caravan relevant definition The definition of “caravan” in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 s.29(1) applies to planning consents given under the Town and Country Planning Act. A Co. owned a caravan site which had the benefit of planning consent for 205 caravans. The consent was qualified by a requirement that “no fresh structures shall be allowed on the site without…specific consent”. A Co. erected a chalet which lacked wheels but could be moved. It was not a caravan within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word, but it did fall within the definition thereof in s.29 …
…2006062815011620060628150116 20060628150116 20060628150029 20060628150116 20060628150116 20060628150116 20060628150116 Wyre Forest DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Allen’s Caravans (Estates) [1990] 2 A.C. 357; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 517; [1990] 1 All E.R. 780; (1990) 60 P. & C.R. 195; [1990] 2 P.L.R. 95 Wyre Forest DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Allen’s Caravans (Estates) (1989) 58 P. & C.R. 132; [1989] 1 P.L.R. 79; [1989] J.P.L. 362; [1988] E.G. 161 (C.S.) Wyre Forest DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Allen’s Caravans (Estates) [1990] 2 A.C. 357; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 517; [1990] 1 All E.R. 780; (1990) 60 P. & C.R. 195; [1990] 2 P.L.R. 95 Wyre Forest DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Allen’s Caravans (Estates) (1989) 58 P. & C.R. 132; [1989] 1 P.L.R. 79; [1989] J.P.L. 362; [1988] E.G. 161 (C.S.) Brutus v Cozens …
…98 (C.S.); (2002) 99(37) L.S.G. 38; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 201; [2002] N.P.C. 104; Times, August 19, 2002; Official TranscriptCaravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13 Caravan Sites Act 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.1(4) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.3 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.4 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.16(1)(b) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.17 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.18 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.20 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.21 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.22 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.22(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.29(1) Development Charge Application Regulations 1950 (SI 1950 728 …
…1950 (SI 1950 )Town and Country Planning General Development Order and Development Charge Application Regulations 1950 (SI 1950 ) Ord.728 Caravans. S.P.L.P. 1990, 31, 80-81 Caravan sites Mobile homes Planning permission When is a chalet a caravan? J.P.L. 1990, Oct, 724-729 Caravan sites Mobile homes Planning permission 1990193636 722…
34.
Brightlingsea Haven Ltd v Morris Queen’s Bench Division, 30 October 2008
Subject: Real property
Keywords: Constructive trusts; Mobile homes; Proprietary estoppel; Tenancies
Where Reported: [2008] EWHC 1928 (QB); [2009] 2 P. & C.R. 11; [2009] 1 E.G.L.R. 117; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis [2009] 2 P. & C.R. 11 Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…QB)] [2008] EWHC 1928 (QB) UK United Kingdom Official 30 October 2008 Jack, J. Jack J Real property Proprietary estoppel Mobile homes Tenancies Constructive trusts Proprietary estoppel Constructive trusts Purchase of lodges on caravan site in expectation of grant of lease Propriety of granting lease by way of constructive trust The claimant caravan park owner (B) sought an injunction preventing the defendant residents (R) occupying their lodges on the park during the day …
…components. In accordance with the conditions of B’s site licence and lease, which required the park to be a seasonal caravan park only, B told R that they would be unable to occupy the lodges for a “closed period” of some …
…Act 1989 s.2(5) excepted constructive trusts from the provisions of s.2(1); (2) the lodges were not caravans within the meaning of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 , meaning that no criminal offence had been caused under s.9(1) of the 1960 Act when …
…C.S.); [1993] N.P.C. 97; Times, June 28, 1993; Independent, July 6, 1993Odina v Mackland Ltd Unreported, May 27, 2009 Caravan Act 1968 s.13(1) Caravan Act 1968 s.13 Caravan Act 1968 s.1(2)(b) Caravan Act 1968 s.13(2) Caravan Act 1968 s.13.1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Caravan Act 1968 Part 1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part 1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(1) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2)(b) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(3)(b) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13.1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.7(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13(1) Caravan Sites Act 1968 and Social Landlords (Permissible Additional Purposes) (England) Order 2006 (Definition of Caravan) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006 (SI 2006 2374) art.2(a) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Part 1 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Sch.5 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(6) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.1 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.12 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.29 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.29(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.3 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(1)(d) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(i) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.9 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.9(1) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 …
…Courts Act 1980 (c.43)Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (c.43) s.127 Misrepresentation Act 1967 (c.7) s.2 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5 Caravan Act 1968 s.1(2) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1(2) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.1(2)(b) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1(2)(b) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5(i) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) Sch.1 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.2(2) Native Land Trust Ordinance Park Rules Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c…
35.
Fareham BC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 5 June 2001
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Houses; Mobile homes; Planning permission
Where Reported: [2001] EWHC Admin 462; [2002] P.L.C.R. 8; (2001) 98(25) L.S.G. 48; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis [2002] P.L.C.R. 8 Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…design would not result in increased visual intrusion. Further, planning permission had been granted in 1999 to replace an existing mobile home on the land with a double unit mobile home. That permission also provided for the removal of the hay store, shed and greenhouse. In applying relevant policy, the Inspector concluded that the “structure was mobile”, but the “dwelling was not temporary”, that there was a distinction to be drawn in policy “between the caravan/mobile home and a permanent dwelling in the sense of bricks and mortar” but that “the policy does not establish a …
…attributes for daily living. My attention was drawn to a number of authorities relating to the question of whether a caravan came within the definition of a dwelling-house. I do not find those authorities particularly helpful having regard to the …
…a matter of law.” The Inspector does not say in the clearest possible terms that in the instant case this caravan is capable of being an existing permanent dwelling-house within policy H11. What he says is: “A caravan is defined as a structure capable of being moved from one place to another, a mobile home is in plain meaning of language mobile, I conclude that this structure is mobile, but the dwelling is not temporary, consequently there is a distinction to be drawn in terms of policy H11D between the caravan/mobile home and a permanent dwelling in the sense of bricks and mortar, but in this case the Policy does not …
…was making a comparison between what was proposed, i.e. the house and garden, and the existing, i.e. the single unit caravan, and it was only thereafter that he considered the fall-back 132 position, namely comparing the two-bedroom house with the two unit caravan. I see nothing wrong with that approach. The Inspector was entitled to look at the two possibilities without determining whether the two unit caravan would actually be installed. Both alternatives needed to be considered and were. Mr Bedford alleged that the Inspector did not …
…by Mr Jenkins on behalf of the claimant that the proposed two-storey dwelling-house and the standard twin unit caravan could be accommodated side by side is somewhat fanciful. Mr Jenkins says: “… while a standard twin unit caravan will probably be too wide it is my understanding that residential caravans can be made to a customers individual size requirements if desired.” I say not more than I do not consider…
36.
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:
…authorities’ powers and dutiesNotices 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. Where a court makes such a possession order, it has power to suspend its enforcement …
…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 …
…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 …
…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 …
…reasonable terms;(c) whether the occupier has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain elsewhere other suitable accommodation for his caravan (or, as the case may be, another suitable caravan and accommodation for it). The present proceedings fall under phase 2 of the legislative scheme, having been commenced in 2006…
37.
R. (on the application of Moss) v First Secretary of State Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 03 November 2003
Subject: Planning; Housing
Keywords: Gypsies; Local plans; Planning inspectors; Planning permission
Where Reported: [2003] EWHC 2781 (Admin); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…and Country Planning Act 1990 s.288 against a government planning inspector’s decision not to allow him to put a mobile home and four caravans on a site which he partly owned with seven other gypsies. M’s application to the local authority for planning permission …
…eight separate, identical applications by each of the land’s joint owners, which would have resulted in a total of eight mobile homes and 32 caravans on the site. The inspector heard together and rejected their appeals against the local authority’s refusal to grant them planning …
…local plan policy. M contended that, inter alia, the inspector had (1) failed to consider the national need for gypsy caravan sites as an independent material consideration, and (2) failed to consider in detail the personal circumstances of the occupiers of …
…received permission. It was clear from her decision letter that her main consideration for refusal was the total number of mobile homes and caravans. M D Watkinson. the Secretary of State J Maurici M South West Law. the Secretary of State Treasury Solicitor 20060525174411 …
…Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) s.288Gypsy planning challenges in the High Court J.P.L. 2004, Dec, 1654-1670 Caravans Gypsies Injunctions Local authorities powers and duties Planning control Planning permission Protection of property Right to respect for home Right…
38.
Taylor v Calvert Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 02 February 1978
Subject: Landlord and Tenant
Keywords: Jurisdiction; Mobile homes; Private sector tenancies; Variation
Where Reported: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 899; [1978] 2 All E.R. 630; (1979) 37 P. & C.R. 36; (1978) 247 E.G. 135; [1978] J.P.L. 463; (1978) 122 S.J. 486
Documents: Case Analysis [1978] 1 W.L.R. 899 (1979) 37 P. & C.R. 36
Terms in Context:
…CA (Civ Div)Court of Appeal (Civil Division) UK United Kingdom 02 February 1978 (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Landlord and Tenant Mobile homes Private sector tenancies Variation Jurisdiction Mobile homes term of leases jurisdiction of court to extend A judge has no jurisdiction under the Mobile Homes Act 1975 to grant terms of more than five years to residents on a site. The owners of a caravan site offered terms of five years to residents on their site in accordance with their obligations under the Mobile Homes Act 1975. The residents were dissatisfied and sought longer terms. The agreements were amended in the county court by …
…All E.R. 720; (1980) 40 P. & C.R. 562; (1980) 124 S.J. 710Lamb v Adams (1981) 42 P. & C.R. 145 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4 Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4(1)(a) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4(2)(a) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4(3) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4(4) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4(5) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.4(7) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.1 Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.1(1)(b) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.2 Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.2(1) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.2(2) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.3 Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.3(c) Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) s.9 1978025957 723…
39.
Goodwin v Stratford upon Avon DC Queen’s Bench Division, 18 November 1996
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Licensing
Where Reported: (1997) 73 P. & C.R. 524
Documents: Case Analysis (1997) 73 P. & C.R. 524
Terms in Context:
…acknowledged by the Planning Authority. Consequently when prescribing the minimum measurements it was to accord with the existing right for caravans for residential use—caravans of any smaller dimension not being considered suitable for such use. The appellant accepted the respondent’s view that caravans any smaller than the minimum measurements prescribed in Condition 5 would not be suitable for residential use. (o) It would be wholly optional (and a matter for their own convenience) for caravan owners to remove their caravans from the site in the event of the “yellow” warning. 527 (p) It would not be desirable for the caravans to be moved from the site when adjacent highways were actually flooded and difficult to pass as any blockage caused by a stranded caravan may hamper the emergency services. (q) The respondent accepted that it would not derogate from what had been previously conceded as the existing use rights and reflected in the earlier site licence. Consequently six of the permitted 34 caravans were not required to be towable. (r) That the respondent was acting in good faith in framing the conditions of the amended licence. (s) Touring and weekend caravans would not necessarily meet the minimum measurements referred to in Condition 5 as many smaller caravans exist but no evidence was put before us by the appellant to show how she desired to operate the site …
…precisely what was permitted by those existing use rights. It seems that initially the local authority asserted that only three caravans in the form of mobile homes were permitted on the site. That later went up to six, but in 1990, it obtained Counsel’s opinion and …
…Counsel’s opinion on the 19.61 Planning Permission and the District Council accept that the restriction on the number of caravans therein contained is invalid. The number of caravans on the site is appropriately controlled only by the Site Licence issued under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Accordingly, there was a planning permission for the use of the site as a caravan site, and the number of caravans that could be included on the site were, according to the licence, and it is accepted that this is the correct number, 34 altogether. That is the number of caravans which this particular site, having regard to its dimensions and layout, could properly take. There is no limitation as to the type of caravans according to the planning permission, that is to say, this is not a site which is limited to residential or to touring caravans. So far as the planning permission is concerned, the site can be used either for residential mobile homes, as they are sometimes called, or for what might loosely be called “touring caravans” for short stay visits. No doubt, being where it is, it is the sort of site that might attract summer …
…felt unable to accept the condition outlined in 3.2.1. [that is Condition 5] as the restricted definition of caravan would have removed his existing right to site six mobile homes at The Paddock.That was the proposed condition which did not exclude the six from the condition of towability, as it was as originally drafted that all the caravans on site should be towable. The report goes on: In addition, he felt that accepting the condition, if it applied only to the additional 28 caravans, would unduly restrict his daughter [that is the present appellant] and her heirs. In discussions with both myself, my officers …
…to have reached a stalemate. Under her existing licence Ms C. Godwin has the right to site up to six mobile homes; I have no wish to change that position. The question at issue is whether the additional 28 caravans permitted as an amendment to the current licence should be restricted in type to those which can be readily towed or whether the unrestricted definition of “caravan” should be accepted, thus permitting the siting of mobile homes. I have already noted paragraph 3(b) in the case, recording the submissions 532 of Counsel for the appellant in relation to the inability to use the site as a holiday caravan site during summer months. The same applies in paragraph 3(d) where the submission is made, that the minimum size caravans imposed by the condition excluded all, but a very few touring caravans and effectively precluded the use of the site for touring or holiday use. The only finding of the Justices which…
40.
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Harpcombe Ltd Queen’s Bench Division, 01 February 1996
Subject: VAT
Keywords: VAT
Where Reported: [1996] S.T.C. 726
Documents: Case Analysis
Terms in Context:
…Queen’s Bench DivisionUK United Kingdom 01 February 1996 Brooke, J. Brooke J (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited VAT VAT Input tax mobile homes expenditure on concrete bases and pipework non-deductible expenditure not related to the sale of the home or the …
…tribunal which allowed that input tax in respect of expenditure incurred by H in the construction of concrete bases for mobile homes was deductible. H owned mobile home parks and, when occupiers wished to move the mobile home was generally sold to H or a third party. The mobile home was usually scrapped and rebuilt. CEC argued that the sale of a mobile home was made up of the taxable supply of the mobile home itself and the exempt supply of the grant of the licence to occupy. CEC contended that the tribunal had erred in law. H argued that the mobile homes were buildings and the provision of the concrete base and pipe work was part of the supply of the home itself. Held, allowing the appeal, that (1) although an occupier would only purchase a mobile home once he was satisfied that the concrete base reached the standards recommended by such documents as the Homeseeker Owners …
…a direct and immediate link with the taxable transaction; whether or not the ultimate purpose was exempt was irrelevant, Stonecliff Caravan Park v Customs and Excise Commissioners Stonecliff Caravan Park v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1993] V.A.T.T.R. 464 and BLP Group Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners (C-4 …
…specifiedCEC CEC Solicitors 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 20060628150140 Stonecliff Caravan Park v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1993] V.A.T.T.R. 464 BLP Group Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners (C-4/94 …
…983; [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 750; [1995] B.V.C. 159; Times, April 17, 1995Concrete decision. Tax. 1996, 137(3574), 710-711 Caravan sites Input tax Mobile homes VAT Mobile homes. Tax. 1996, 136(3543), 522-523 Caravan sites Input tax Mobile homes VAT 1996291407 724…