Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 c. 62
Schedule 1 CASES WHERE A CARAVAN SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED
Agricultural and forestry workers
(version 1 of 1)
7.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan 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 occupation.
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 c. 62
Schedule 1 CASES WHERE A CARAVAN SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED
Agricultural and forestry workers
Legislation Analysis
Table of Amendments
Version Provision Amendment notes Effective date
1 incorporates amendments made up to this date February 1, 1991: represents law in force as at date shown
Commencement
Commencement information is not available for most pre-1990 Acts.
Extent
Sch. 1 para. 7 England, Wales, Scotland
Related Legislation
Applying
Sch. 1 para. 7 Town and Country Planning (General Development) (Scotland) Order 1981/830, Sch. 1(I) para. 1
Referring
Sch. 1 para. 7 Town and Country Planning (General Development) (Scotland) Order 1975/679, Sch. 1(I) para. 1
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995/418, Sch. 2(5)(ClassA) para. A2
Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988/1813, Sch. 2(5)(Class) para. A2
Cases Citing
Sch. 1 para. 7
1. R. (on the application of Grange) v Harrogate BC
[2009] EWHC 1997 (Admin) (QBD (Admin))
2. R. (on the application of Hall Hunter Partnership) v First Secretary of State
[2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin); [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 5; [2007] J.P.L. 1023 (QBD (Admin))
R. (on the application of Grange) v Harrogate BC
Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)
23 June 2009
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2009] EWHC 1997 (Admin); Official Transcript
Case Digest
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Amendments; Barn conversions; Caravan sites; Enforcement notices; Planning conditions; Planning inspectors; Service
Summary: There was no requirement to re-serve an enforcement notice when it had been varied by an inspector pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.176.
Abstract: 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 barns should be subject to certain conditions. The respondent local authority had issued 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 planning application on the basis of the amended plan before it and refused to accede to his late request to revert to the original plan. G submitted, among other things, that the inspector had erred in law by (1) altering the notice; (2) 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 with the local authority about whether it should consider the original or the amended barn conversion plans.
Appeal dismissed. (1) The inspector had power under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.176(2) to correct any defect in an enforcement notice or vary its terms, if it would not cause injustice to the addressee or local authority. The parties had agreed that the primary use of the caravan was residential, so the inspector rightly formed the view that the amendment could be made without injustice to either party. Indeed, nothing had been put forward to show that the amendment caused any injustice at all and so the variation was lawful. (2) There was no requirement to re-serve an enforcement notice when it had been varied by an inspector pursuant to s.176, Masefield v Taylor [1987] J.P.L. 721 applied. In any event, there was no evidence of any 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 it stood when it was determined. There was no suggestion that any evidence was put before him to show that he should deal with it differently. To insert an alternative condition would mean that it would be a different development, and so it might raise matters on which any interested parties would wish to comment.
Judge: Silber, J.
Counsel: For the claimant: In person. For the defendant: Sarah-Jane Davies.
Significant Cases Cited
Masefield v Taylor
[1987] J.P.L. 721; DC
All Cases Cited
Sort by:
R. (on the application of Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex CC
[2002] UKHL 8; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 348; [2002] 4 All E.R. 58; [2003] 1 P. & C.R. 5; [2002] 2 P.L.R. 60; [2002] J.P.L. 821; [2002] 10 E.G. 158 (C.S.); [2002] N.P.C. 32; Times, March 5, 2002; Official Transcript; HL
Masefield v Taylor
[1987] J.P.L. 721; DC
Legislation Cited
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
R. (on the application of Hall Hunter Partnership) v First Secretary of State
Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)
15 December 2006
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin); [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 5; [2007] J.P.L. 1023; Official Transcript
Case Digest
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural land; Change of use; Enforcement notices; Mobile homes; Permanence; Permitted development; Planning permission; Statutory interpretation
Summary: A planning inspector had been correct in concluding that the stationing of 45 caravans on a farm for the accommodation of seasonal workers had constituted a change of use, and that the erection of many hectares of large, linked, walk-in polytunnels for growing soft fruit on the farm had constituted development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.55(1).
Abstract: The appellant farming partnership (H) appealed against two enforcement notices issued by the second respondent local authority (W) in regard to the use of a farm owned by H. Enforcement notice A related to the change of use from agriculture to the stationing of 45 caravans on the site for the accommodation of seasonal workers, and notice B to the erection over 34 to 45 hectares of the farm for nine months of the year of large plastic walk-in polytunnels for growing soft fruit. There were linked blocks of up to 24 tunnels. The farm was in the green belt and substantially within an area of great landscape value and of outstanding natural beauty. The planning inspector dismissed H’s appeals against the notices and upheld them subject to an extension of time for compliance. H submitted that (1) the inspector had erred in concluding that the tunnels were “development” within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.55(1); (2) if the tunnels amounted to development, the inspector had erred in concluding that they were not permitted development within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Sch.2 as its use of the word “operations” should be the ordinary and natural one, which would include farming operations; (3) the inspector had erred in concluding that the use of the farm for the stationing of the caravans was not permitted development by virtue of Sch.2 Part 5 to the Order.
Appeal dismissed. (1) The inspector had considered all the circumstances, particularly size, degree of physical attachment and permanence. On the facts, his conclusions were not unreasonable and on the evidence of his decision letter there appeared no conceivable error of law as to whether the erection of the tunnels amounted to development, Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.2) [2000] 2 P.L.R. 102 applied. (2) Throughout the Act there was a distinction drawn between development by the carrying out of operations and development by the making of a material change of use, Parkes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1308 considered. In the instant case, the inspector had been correct to characterise the activities as a use of land, not operations. (3) On the evidence, it was difficult to fault the conclusion of the inspector that the relevant land remained designed and fitted out for use as a caravan site, was occupied by caravans for a substantial part of any one year beyond mere seasonal use and would not lose its character as a caravan site merely by their being removed for a period.
Judge: Sullivan, J.
Counsel: For the appellant: Timothy Straker QC, Garrett Byrne. For the first respondent: Paul Brown. For the second respondent: Christopher Katowski QC, Alison Oakes. For the third respondent: Guy Williams.
Solicitor: For the appellant: Clifton Ingram. For the first respondent: Treasury Solicitor. For the second respondent: Local authority solicitor.
Significant Cases Cited
Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.2)
[2000] 2 P.L.R. 102; [2000] J.P.L. 1025; [2000] E.G. 43 (C.S.); Official Transcript; CA (Civ Div)
Parkes v Secretary of State for the Environment
[1978] 1 W.L.R. 1308; [1979] 1 All E.R. 211; 77 L.G.R. 39; (1978) 36 P. & C.R. 387; (1978) 248 E.G. 595; [1979] J.P.L. 33; (1978) 122 S.J. 349; CA (Civ Div)
All Cases Cited
Sort by: