Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Ross Park Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
9 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1334 (Admin)
High Court
A caravan park wanted to allow people to live in their touring caravans year-round. The judge agreed with the planning inspector that this was a big change from the existing permission, which was only for temporary stays, and therefore not allowed without a new planning permission.
Key Facts
- •Ross Park Homes Ltd. applied for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (LDC) to use land for year-round touring caravan habitation.
- •The council refused, and the appeal was dismissed by an inspector.
- •The claimant sought permission to apply for planning statutory review under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- •The main issue was whether year-round residential use of touring caravans fell within the existing lawful use.
- •The inspector found that the existing lawful use was for transient leisure use of touring caravans, and year-round residential use would be a material change.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of planning permission conditions should be based on what a reasonable reader would understand in context, considering the natural and ordinary meaning of words, overall purpose, and common sense.
Trump International Golf Club Limited v Scottish Ministers [2016] 1 WLR 85; London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State [2019] 1 WLR 4317
The absence of a condition restricting use doesn't automatically alter the description of development in the planning permission itself.
Barton Park Estates Limited (cited in the judgment)
The use for which planning permission is granted must be ascertained by interpreting the words in the permission itself. Whether other uses would be materially different is irrelevant for ascertaining the permitted use.
Winchester (cited in the judgment)
In determining material change of use, the present use and proposed use are compared; a notional permitted use is not relevant.
Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 20
The applicant bears the burden of proving that the proposed use falls within existing lawful use.
South Bucks District Council & Anor v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
Outcomes
Permission to apply for planning statutory review refused.
The grounds of challenge were unarguable and had no realistic prospect of success. The inspector's interpretation of the planning permission and assessment of material change of use were lawful and adequately reasoned.
Similar Cases
The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)
Janet Maureen Jaffe v Tingdene Marinas Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 751
Hart District Council v Helen Freeman & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1246 (KB)
Phillip Robling & Anor v Maurice Fred Doe
[2024] UKUT 11 (LC)