Holmes v Cooper Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 10 June 1985
Subject: Housing; Licensing
Keywords: Caravan sites; Licensing
Where Reported: [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1060; [1985] 3 All E.R. 114; 84 L.G.R. 225; (1985) 50 P. & C.R. 437; (1985) 82 L.S.G. 2741; (1985) 129 S.J. 653
Documents: Case Analysis [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1060 (1985) 50 P. & C.R. 437
Terms in Context:
…0CA (Civ Div) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) UK United Kingdom Official 10 June 1985 (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Housing Licensing Caravan sites Licensing Mobile home caravan site licence travelling showmens’ exemption Where one caravan is stationed on land for the purposes of human habitation, a caravan site licence is required, notwithstanding that other caravans stationed on the site fall within the travelling showmens’ exemption, so as to make the site a protected site. D stationed her caravan on land owned by P. The land was run by P as a caravan site. P sought possession of the land from D. The trial judge held that D’s caravan was stationed on a protected site and dismissed the claim for possession. Certain orders were made against P on D’s counterclaim. P appealed. It was argued that a caravan site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 was not required by virtue of the travelling showmens’ exemption set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960Sch.1 para.10. P claimed the exemption applied where the substantial or predominant use of the site was for travelling showmen. Held, dismissing the appeal, that where one caravan was stationed on the site for the purpose of human habitation, a caravan site licence was required. P could only rely upon the travelling showmens’ exemption if all the caravans on the site fell within the provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Sch.1 para.10. As a caravan site licence was required under s.1 of the Act the site was a protected site within the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s.3 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 20060628150224 Berkeley …
…1 P.L.R. 108; [1989] J.P.L. 513; (1989) 153 L.G. Rev. 328; (1989) 86(3) L.S.G. 44; (1989) 133 S.J. 46Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.3 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) para.10 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Sch.1 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1(1) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1(2) Caravan site licences, exemptions and statutory protection. L.G. Rev. 1986, 150(5), 69-70 Caravan sites Licences 1985030603 723…
2.
Vale of White Horse DC v Mirmalek-Sani Divisional Court, 29 January 1993
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural land; Caravans; Exemptions; Licensing
Where Reported: (1993) 25 H.L.R. 387; Times, February 10, 1993
Documents: Case Analysis (1993) 25 H.L.R. 387
Terms in Context:
…Vale of White Horse DCMirmalek-Sani VALE OF WHITE HORSE DISTRICT COUNCIL V MIRMALEK-SANI & ANOR (1993 …
…United KingdomOfficial 29 January 1993 Kennedy, L.J. Kennedy LJ Clarke, J. Clarke J (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Agricultural land Caravans Exemptions Licensing Agricultural living accommodation caravan on agricultural land all year round whether site licence required Caravans used for accommodating workers on a poultry farm which were occupied all year round did not fall within the exemption contained in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Sch.1, para.7 M owned land on which they had stationed two caravans. There was no site licence for the caravans and no planning permission had been granted. M had lived in the caravans since March 1991. The land consisted of 28 acres on which M kept and traded in free- range eggs. M’s income derived wholly from the business and it was essential for them to live on the site to deal with emergencies. In May 1991, the local authority prosecuted M for use of the land without a site licence issued under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. In September 1991, the justices acquitted M, finding that M were exempted from the requirement by para.7 of Sch.1 to the 1960 Act. The authority requested the justices to state a case to the High Court on the question. Held, allowing the authority’s appeal, that the purpose of the exemption was to dispense with the need for a site licence for sites used as temporary accommodation for agricultural workers for part of the year; accommodation for workers on a poultry farm throughout the year could not be regarded as falling within the meaning of para …
…2006052517220420060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 20060525172204 North v Brown (1974) 231 E.G. 737 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.2 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Sch.1 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Sch.1, para.7 1993251733 724…
3.
Cartledge v Scottish Ministers Court of Session (Outer House), 01 April 2010
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Planning; Planning permission; Scotland
Where Reported: 2010 G.W.D. 16-323; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…0OH Court of Session (Outer House) SC Scotland Official 01 April 2010 Lady Dorrian Planning Planning Scotland Planning permission Caravan sites The proprietor of a caravan park (C) appealed against the decision of a reporter (R) for the Scottish Ministers dismissing C’s appeal against the refusal …
…a certificate of lawful use in the terms sought by him.C’s predecessor had been granted planning permission for the caravan park in 1972, which contained a proposed site layout plan showing four areas, with 64 caravan stances in areas 1 to 3 and mixed trees and undergrowth in area 4. The planning permission also provided for the future development of these areas. C was granted a licence in 2000 which contained a condition that not more than 64 caravans were to be stationed on the site at any one time. He thereafter sought an increase in that allowance but was issued with a certificate of lawful use affirming the limitation to 64 caravans. On appeal R held that he was unable to accept on the balance of probabilities that the planning permission granted in 1972 allowed the siting of caravans, or any form of operational development on area 4, which was the only available area. S averred that R had reached a decision which, on the evidence, he could not reasonably have reached as only the caravan licence could restrict the number of caravans. S submitted that (1) the planning permission incorporated the proposed layout plan and in doing so prescribed the number and locations of the caravans permitted at the site, and the site licence was complimentary to, and did not supersede, the grant of planning permission; (2) the planning permission showed that caravans were to be sited in areas 1, 2 and 3 only and it could not be assumed that the development of area 4 would have involved the placing of caravans; if however that was a condition of the permission, it was an express and not an implied one; (3) there was an overlap between the planning permission and the licensing regime and the controls under the licensing regime operated within the limits of the planning permission. The precise number of caravans permissible on a caravan site was to be governed by the site licence and not the planning permission where the planning permission was no more than a proposed layout and ought not to be read as being prescriptive of the formation of the site. Appeal allowed and R’s decision quashed. (1) The precise number of caravans on site was to be governed by the site licence and not the planning permission. The planning permission ought not to be read as being prescriptive of the formation of the site where it was no more than a proposed layout, moreover, it was not the only and “approved” layout where it was anticipated that development of the site would eventually include area 4. (2) The planning permit, with the layout plan, could neither be read as indicating that the consent was for a number of caravans restricted only to the number and location as shown in the proposed layout, nor could it be read so as …
…any restriction on development to be contained within a planning permission should be clearly stated and precise. (3) The original licence granted to C’s predecessor was for 60 caravans on site and if the issue were controlled by the planning permit, that licence would have been for 64 caravans as shown in the proposed layout. The fact that the licence was for 60 caravans was a strong indicator that the intention was a matter to be determined by the site licence and not the planning permit. Appeal allowed and R’s decision quashed 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 20100415032613 …
…92(23) L.S.G. 32; (1995) 139 S.J.L.B. 130; [1995] N.P.C. 96; Times, May 24, 1995; Independent, June 14, 1995Esdell Caravan Parks Ltd v Hemel Hempstead Rural DC [1966] 1 Q.B. 895; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1238; [1965] 3 All E.R. 737 …
…R. v Kent Justices Ex p. Crittenden[1964] 1 Q.B. 144; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 1124; (1963) 14 P. & C.R. 456 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (SI 1992…
4.
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:
…1 namely ‘ … the use shall be discontinued when the circumstances specified in paragraph A.2 cease to exist and all caravans on the site shall be removed as soon as reasonably practical The circumstances mentioned in Class A, as set out in paragraph A.2, ‘ … are those specified in paragraphs 2–10 of Schedule 1 to the [ Caravans Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 79. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) (the ‘1960 Act’) prohibits the use of land as a caravan site without a ‘ site licence ’, but no such licence is required for such use in the circumstances set out in the First Schedule to the 1960 Act. By paragraph 7 of the First Schedule , a ‘ site licence ’ would not be required for the ‘ … use as a caravan 89 site of agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons employed in farming operations on land in the same operation The inspector summarised the practical effect of those provisions in para.80 of the decision letter: “Taken together, Class A …
…need to be met to attract the permission granted by the GPDO Mr Straker accepted that, in order for the caravan site to be permitted development, the claimant had to meet all four criteria. The inspector said in para.81: “81. First, there is no dispute that Notice A is directed at the ‘ use as a caravan site of agricultural land for the accommodation … of a person or persons employed in farming operations ’ and, as such, that use would meet the first criterion of Part 5 of Schedule 2.” The inspector dealt with …
…the second criterion as follows: “82. Second, it is necessary to show that ‘ … the use shall be discontinued … and all caravans on the site shall be removed as soon as reasonably practical There is no dispute that in November or by early December 2004, all the caravans were removed from the site and stored elsewhere until they returned in February 2005. However, the infrastructure, comprising the pathways, the drainage, the electrical and water supplies serving the caravans, all remain in place throughout the year. 83. In Ramsey v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Suffolk Coastal DC [2002] JPL 1123 , it was held that the carrying out of operations on the land may in some cases be relevant on the issue of whether the proposed use was a temporary one, or was instead a permanent change of use of the land; the latter would arise if the operations make it difficult or impossible for the site to revert realistically to its previous normal use, such as agriculture, in between the occasions when the land is used …
…the condition in para.A1 in Class A of Pt 5 of Sch.2 to the GPDO : the use as a caravan site “shall be discontinued … and all caravans on the land shall be removed …” (emphasis added). As Mr Brown pointed out on behalf of the first defendant, since caravans cannot by definition be occupied on the site once they have been removed from it, the condition envisages that there may be circumstances where mere removal of the caravans may not be sufficient to bring the use of the land as a caravan site to an end. Whether removal of the caravans will of itself be sufficient to bring a use as a caravan site to an end will be very much a matter of fact and degree in each case. When the caravans have departed, do they leave behind an agricultural field or do they leave behind an empty caravan site with all the necessary infrastructure, pathways, services et cetera waiting for them to return? The inspector’s conclusion in para.85 …
…The inspector summarised the third criterion in para.86: “Third, it is necessary to show that the use as a caravan site of this agricultural land is ‘… for … accommodation … during a particular season’. He then referred to two authorities, which since they are not in dispute it is unnecessary to cite, which demonstrate that the exemption does not extend to agricultural workers who are employed throughout the year, as opposed to those who are engaged temporarily for purposes such as hop gathering or potato picking. The inspector concluded in para.91: “91. The nine-to-ten months during which the caravans are occupied would be distinctly different from that envisaged by the Courts embracing the period of hop-gathering or potato…
5.
Balthasar v Mullane Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 19 July 1985
Subject: Housing
Keywords: Caravans; Planning permission; Possession
Where Reported: (1985) 17 H.L.R. 561; 84 L.G.R. 55; (1986) 51 P. & C.R. 107; [1985] 2 E.G.L.R. 260; [1986] J.P.L. 751
Documents: Case Analysis (1985) 17 H.L.R. 561 (1986) 51 P. & C.R. 107
Terms in Context:
…BalthasarMullane BALTHASAR & ORS V MULLANE & ANOR (1985) 17 H.L.R. 561 84 L.G.R. 55 (1986) 51 P. & C.R …
…Division)UK United Kingdom Official 19 July 1985 Neill, L.J. Neill LJ Glidewell, L.J. Glidewell LJ (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Housing Caravans Planning permission Possession Mobile home protected site A “protected site” for the purposes of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 s. 1(2) means one where planning permission has been granted for one or more mobile homes to be set up upon it. D stationed their mobile home, a caravan, on part of P’s land and occupied the caravan as their only residence. No planning permission had been granted for the stationing of the caravan. D occupied the site pursuant to a gratuitous and temporary permission granted by P. P later revoked their permission, and when D refused to move, obtained a county court order for possession. D appealed on the ground that their occupation of the caravan was protected by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and that they were entitled to an agreement pursuant to the Act to continue to station their caravan there. Held, dismissing the appeal that the words “protected site” for the purposes of section 1(2) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 meant a site in respect of which planning permission had been granted for the stationing of one or more caravans thereon. Since no such permission had been granted in respect of this land, D did not qualify for protection under …
…2001] 42 E.G. 137 (C.S.); [2001] N.P.C. 148; Official TranscriptAdams v Brown (1989) 86(46) L.S.G. 39; Official Transcript Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part .1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 Part I Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.1 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.1(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.2 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.3 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.3(3) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.3(4) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.6 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34…
6.
R. (on the application of Grange) v Harrogate BC Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 23 June 2009
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Amendments; Barn conversions; Caravan sites; Enforcement notices; Planning conditions; Planning inspectors; Service
Where Reported: [2009] EWHC 1997 (Admin); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…2009] EWHC 1997 (Admin)UKEW England and Wales Official 23 June 2009 Silber, J. Silber, J Planning Amendments Barn conversions Caravan sites Enforcement notices Planning conditions Planning inspectors Service Caravan sites Enforcement notices Planning inspector’s power to amend notice Need for service of amended notice The appellant (G) appealed against a planning inspector’s decision that he had stationed a caravan on land without planning permission, and he also applied to quash the inspector’s decision that planning permission to convert some …
…an enforcement notice for breach of planning control alleging that G had, without planning permission, changed the use of his site to the mixed purpose of agriculture and stationing a caravan. When G appealed, the inspector amended the notice to specify that the caravan was for residential use, before dismissing the appeal. In regard to the barn conversions, the local authority had considered G’s …
…failing to effect service of the enforcement notice as varied by him; (3) failing to take proper account of his operations in engineering, building, agriculture and forestry, which permitted him to use the caravan for accommodation, in accordance with the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Sch.1 para.7 to para.10 ; (4) failing to take into account correspondence …
…prejudice to G. (3) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Sch.2 on permitted development of caravan sites, read in conjunction with the 1960 Act, was concerned with caravans used for the accommodation of persons employed in connection with building or engineering operations. Much of the work in the instant case had taken place before the caravan had been brought on to the land, and the later work was only maintenance or repairs, not significant building or engineering operations. Therefore the site did not benefit from the permitted development rights. (4) The inspector was entitled to look at the planning application as …
…2002] 10 E.G. 158 (C.S.); [2002] N.P.C. 32; Times, March 5, 2002; Official TranscriptMasefield v Taylor [1987] J.P.L. 721 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Sch.1 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) Sch.1 para.7 Circular 11/95 Circular 11/95 para.84…
7.
Mid Suffolk DC v Upton Queen’s Bench Division, 13 September 2007
Subject: Planning; Civil procedure
Keywords: Circulars; Gypsies; Injunctions; Planning control; Planning permission; Traveller sites
Where Reported: [2007] EWHC 2296 (QB); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…KingdomOfficial 13 September 2007 Judge Seymour Q.C. Seymour, HHJ, QC Planning Civil procedure Planning control Planning permission Gypsies Traveller sites Injunctions Circulars Planning control Injunctions Family not “gypsies” within meaning of Circular 01/2006 The applicant local authority applied under …
…of planning control.In 2007, the first respondent (U) had been registered as the proprietor of an unused and unoccupied site of land. Her address in the land register had been a unit of social housing. Between 1986 and 1997, three planning inspectors had expressed the view that use of the site for mobile homes for gypsies was inconsistent with the character of an adjacent conservation area and with what was a …
…in 2007 U and other members of her family, who were also respondents, installed fences and laid tarmac at the site, and the local authority issued a temporary stop notice in response to that unauthorised development. Thereafter, caravans and a mobile home were moved onto the site and U applied for planning permission. The local authority, having taken the view that the application was invalid and that alternative accommodation was available at other private gypsy sites, sought an injunction. It fell to be determined whether, in the light of the provisions of Circular 01/2006 concerning the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers, there was a real prospect that planning permission might be granted in respect of the site. A local planning authority was entitled to an injunction restraining existing and anticipated breaches of planning control by a family group who had occupied a site with caravans and mobile homes where the family were not “gypsies” within the meaning of Circular 01/2006, and accommodation on other sites was available to them. Application granted. In determining whether or not to grant an injunction under s.187B, the court …
…and there was no real prospect that such an application would succeed based on the need for provision of gypsy sites. Even if that circular did avail the respondents, they would not be homeless if planning permission were not granted for the site. The respondents had failed to give an adequate explanation as to why they could not move to alternative sites, and on the evidence the court was satisfied that if they were required to leave the contested site, pitches were available for them elsewhere. In those circumstances, it was appropriate to grant the injunction sought and not appropriate to suspend it, although the respondents would be permitted 48 hours to remove the caravans and 14 days to remove the mobile home. Application granted the applicant Peter Miller the respondents David Watkinson the applicant …
…135 (C.S.); (2003) 100(22) L.S.G. 32; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 626; [2003] N.P.C. 70; Times, May 23, 2003; Official TranscriptCaravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 European Convention…
8.
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:
…Burnton, Stanley, J(c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Landlord and tenant landlord 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, being used as a gypsy site. I contended that these exemptions resulted in a lack of security of tenure on his part, which meant that the court had no power to investigate whether his eviction was justified. It was argued on behalf of the Secretary of State that such sites were exempted from the legislation because their purpose was not to provide security of tenure, but rather to provide short term accommodation for travellers. Lack of security of tenure for gypsies on local authority sites was 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 were necessary and proportionate, and consequently did not infringe Art 8. Security of tenure would have detracted from the purpose for which these sites were provided, namely for temporary occupation. It was not inevitable that s.4(6) of the 1968 Act and s.5 of the 1983 Act …
…on the application of McLellan) v Bracknell Forest BC [2001] EWCA Civ 1510 applied. In relation to Art.14, both exemptions were justified due to the status of local authorities in providing such sites, rather than any personal attribute of the licensee. I David Watkinson and Valerie Easty. the Secretary of State Timothy Mould …
…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 Act …
…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…
9.
Hartnell v Minister of Housing and Local Government Court of Appeal, 19 December 1963
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Caravan sites; Conditions; Licensing; Statutory powers; Ultra vires
Where Reported: [1964] 2 Q.B. 510; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 425; [1964] 1 All E.R. 354; (1964) 128 J.P. 211; 62 L.G.R. 396; (1964) 15 P. & C.R. 161; [1964] R.V.R. 200; (1964) 108 S.J. 35
Documents: Case Analysis [1964] 2 Q.B. 510 [1964] 2 W.L.R. 425 (1964) 15 P. & C.R. 161
Terms in Context:
…Government and Another.Court of Appeal Sellers Danckwerts and Davies L.JJ. 1963 Dec. 12, 13, 16, 17, 19. Town Planning—Caravan site—Conditions of licence—Existing use rights—Application for site licence—Permission subject to conditions specifically limiting number of caravans on site—Whether derogating from existing rights—Whether conditions valid Meaning of “caravan site”—Dismissal by Minister of appeal against conditions—Effect of order quashing Minister’s decision— Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2, c. 53), s. 31 (6) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz. 2, c. 62), ss. 1 (4), 17 (2) Statute—Construction—Confiscation—Act not to be construed as taking away private rights without compensation—Planning permission—Condition imposed in derogation of …
…owner of a field of a total area of 4.7 acres, which was divided into two sections by a temporary wire fence running from east to west. Since 1957 he had stationed six caravans on the northern section, which consisted of .78 acre, so that by 1960 he had acquired existing use rights for the stationing of residential caravans on the northern section. Some holiday caravans had occasionally been stationed on the southern section. 511 On October 28, 1960, the applicant applied to the appropriate licensing authority for a site licence for 94 caravans under Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 , claiming existing use rights for the whole field and, pursuant to section 17 (2) of the Act of 1960, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, s. 1 (4) : “In this Part of this Act the expression ‘caravan site’ means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed.” S. 17 (2) : “On the making of an application to which this section applies, the local authority …
…a planning permission and there is nothing in the Act of 1960 to take away that power. On a fair construction of the two Acts there is plain power when considering a planning permission to limit the number of caravans for which permission is given. Alternatively, it was proper to limit the number of caravans to six because the applicant was not entitled to station more than six caravans on the site. His existing use rights were limited to six caravans. His application is for permission to use “the 521 existing site.” The “existing site” is land in use as a caravan site: see the definition in section 13 (1) of the Act of 1960. The “caravan site” is land on which caravans are stationed for human habitation and adjoining land which is properly used in conjunction with the land on which caravans are stationed: see the definition of “caravan site” in section 1 (4) of the Act of 1960. It is conceded that if a caravan is temporarily removed for repair the land in which it was stationed still remains a caravan site. But otherwise a caravan site is the land on which a given number of caravans stand plus any adjoining land that is properly used in conjunction with the land on which the caravans stand. To ascertain what land formed the existing site on August 29, 1960, it is necessary to see how many caravans were stationed on the site at that date because it is only by that process that the court can define and delimit the land on which caravans were stationed. There is no other way of finding out what land had caravans stationed on it. When the court has defined the land on which caravans were stationed it must then ascertain how much other adjoining land is properly used in conjunction with the defined land. The existing site will comprise the land defined by reference to the numbers of caravans sitting on it and the adjoining land properly used in conjunction with it. It follows that in ascertaining the existing site it is very relevant to ascertain the numbers of caravans stationed on the land. Having found out the number of caravans so stationed, it is then possible to know the extent of the applicant’s existing use rights. His rights will be limited to stationing the number of caravans which are already on the site. It is a reasonable interpretation of a statute to say that, if one has to look at what is on the site to find out the extent of the site, the rights in respect of caravans already stationed on the site are the sum total of the applicant’s existing use rights. One cannot find out the extent of a caravan site until one has counted the number of caravans on it. One’s existing use rights in respect of a caravan site comprise the right to station that number of caravans on it. There is a certain amount of peripheral case law on the question of “caravan site,” but ultimately it turns on the true construction of the Act of 1960. Regina v. Axbridge Rural District Council, Ex parte Wormald 108 S.J. 114 , D.C.; affd.[1964] 1 W.L.R. 442; [1964] 1 All E.R. 571 , C.A. decided that the extent of the existing site had to be determined as a question of fact by answering the question how much land was used for the purposes 522 of caravans. The Act of 1960 was passed to deal with the situation revealed in Guildford Rural District Council v. Fortescue, [1959 …
…burdensome, may vary or cancel the condition. Section 8 confers on a local authority power to alter conditions attached to site licences at any time. Sections 13 to 20 deal with “existing sites,” and it is as to the true interpretation of these provisions that the arguments have principally proceeded. Section 13 provides as follows: “In this Part of this Act the expression ‘existing site’ means – (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, and (b) land begun to be used as a caravan site after March 9, 1960, and so used at the commencement of this Act, where permission for the use of the land as a caravan site at the commencement of this Act has been granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 otherwise than by a development order, and (c) land (whether or not land which is in use as a caravan site at the commencement of this Act) for the use of which as a caravan site permission under the said Part III is at the commencement of this Act, by virtue of subsection (5) of section 12 of the Act of 1947, not required.” Section 14 provides a limited exemption for these, and is as follows: “No offence shall be committed under section 1 of this Act in respect of an existing site at any time within the period of two months beginning with the commencement of this Act, and if within that period the occupier of an existing site duly makes an application under this Part of this Act for a site licence, no offence shall be committed under section one of this Act in respect of the existing site at any time after the expiration of the said period, and before a site licence is first issued in respect of that existing site.” 537 Section 16 contains a restriction on increases in number of caravans. Subsection (1) provides: “Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the occupier of an existing site shall not at any time before a site licence is first issued in respect thereof cause or permit the number of caravans stationed thereon for the purposes of human habitation to exceed at any one time whichever of the following numbers is …
…hatched portion of the field does not precisely coincide with the part of the field to the north of the temporary wire fence But it appears that this matter is not really of importance.It is important, however, to decide first what an “existing caravan site” or a “caravan site” really is. The Minister and the council contend that it is qualified by the number of caravans proved to have been stationed on the piece of land under consideration. The applicant contends that the governing word is “site,” and it refers to a piece of land on which caravans are stationed without any necessary reference to the number which are there. The definition in section 1 (4) of the Act of 1960 – “. .. the expression ‘caravan site’ means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed” – appears to raise more questions than it solves. In the present case, the inspector found Ante, p. 514. that “Land has not been allocated specifically for each caravan, nor, apart from the winter of 1960 to 1961 and some undefined period prior to that, has any particular part of the field been set aside for the communal use of the caravan occupiers.” This is not really very helpful. But it seems fairly plain that, as a result of the 543 form of the permission granted, the “existing caravan site” must have been in the view of the inspector the piece of land hatched in black on the plan. Nor is this surprising. It is easy to imagine that a caravan site is seldom a severely restricted piece of land round any single caravan. It is much more likely to be a site which includes latrines and washing facilities, and, it may be, a part available for simple games and other occupations of the caravan-dwellers. We were told that in the present case the sanitary and ablution facilities were in the house near the site, but that does not necessarily decide the matter. It would appear that, quite reasonably, the inspector treated the caravan site as including all the land hatched in black, which would seem to settle the matter. The importance of this is that the applicant’s argument next is that he is not limited to the numbers actually on the site on August 28, 1960, or previously, and is entitled to bring on to the site further caravans within reasonable limits, that is, without making any material change of use. If the “caravan site” is the land which forms the site, and not the caravans sitting there, one is forced to the conclusion that this contention is right, and the applicant’s existing site rights were not limited to six caravans. There is much common sense in the contentions of the Minister and the council that by limiting the number of caravans in the permission to six the authority were not depriving the applicant of any benefits which he previously enjoyed. But if he had the right, though not previously exercised, to bring additional caravans on the site, the condition imposed on the permission which limited the site to six caravans, deprived him of a right which undoubtedly existed. Then the question arises whether the Acts of 1960 and 1947 conferred…
10.
Greenwich LBC v Powell House of Lords, 08 December 1988
Subject: Local government
Keywords: Caravan sites; Gypsies; Local authorities powers and duties; Possession; Protected areas; Statutory interpretation
Where Reported: [1989] A.C. 995; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 7; [1989] 1 All E.R. 65; (1989) 21 H.L.R. 218; 87 L.G.R. 423; (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 249; [1989] 1 P.L.R. 108; [1989] J.P.L. 513; (1989) 153 L.G. Rev. 328; (1989) 86(3) L.S.G. 44;
(1989) 133 S.J. 46
Documents: Case Analysis [1989] A.C. 995 [1989] 2 W.L.R. 7 (1989) 21 H.L.R. 218 (1989) 57 P. & C.R. 249
Terms in Context:
…TemplemanTempleman, Lord Lord Griffiths Griffiths, Lord Lord Ackner Ackner, Lord Lord Lowry Lowry, Lord (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Local government Caravan sites Gypsies Local authorities powers and duties Possession Protected areas Statutory interpretation Caravan sites accommodation for gipsies whether site protected Sites provided for gipsies by local authorities pursuant to the 1968 Act are outside the definition of “protected site” within the Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.5(1) P was a gipsy living on the local authority’s site, who spent about four to five months away from the site, working as a fruit picker. The council gave notice to quit, and instituted proceedings for possession. P claimed that the site was a “protected site” within s.5(1) of the 1983 Act. Held, that P might be a gipsy within the meaning of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 , but sites provided by local authorities in performance of their duties under the 1968 Act were excluded from the definition of “protected sites” Mills v Cooper Mills v Cooper [1967] 2 Q.B. 459 considered. 20060628150213 20060525173254 20060525173254 20060628150213 20060628150253 20060628150253 20060525173254 20060525173254 20060525173254 …
…February 1, 1994Woolhead v Secretary of State for the Environment and Epping Forest DC (1996) 71 P. & C.R. 419 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part .1 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Parts Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.4 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.4(4) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.5(1) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6 Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.6(1) 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(3) Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.12(4) 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.1(1) Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.24 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part I County Court Rules 1981 (SI 1981 1687) Gipsy Encampments (Designation of the…