Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council
[2024] UKUT 360 (LC)
Amber Valley Borough Council v Haytop Country Park Limited
22 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 237 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A caravan park owner built things without permission. The council issued a stop order. A court said the owner had to remove the unauthorized work. Then the owner tried to get a license to keep some of the work. Another court said no, the license can't undo the earlier court order. The owner has to follow the rules.
Key Facts
- •Haytop Country Park (the Park) is a caravan site in a sensitive environmental area.
- •The respondent carried out substantial development without planning permission, resulting in an enforcement notice.
- •The Council issued a site licence limiting the number of pitches to three, which the respondent appealed.
- •The FTT allowed the appeal, increasing the number of pitches to 18.
- •The Council appealed the FTT's decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Legal Principles
A site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 cannot include conditions imposed solely for planning reasons.
Babbage v North Norfolk District Council (1989) 59 P&CR 248
The validity of an enforcement notice cannot be questioned in any proceedings except by way of an appeal under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Section 285(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990
A local authority may only issue a site licence if the applicant has planning permission.
Section 3(3), Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960
Conditions attached to a site licence must be necessary or desirable in the interests of persons dwelling in caravans or the public.
Section 5(1), Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the Council's appeal.
The FTT's decision undermined the enforcement notice and permitted development that conflicted with planning constraints. The FTT failed to properly consider the existing planning decisions and acted irrationally in disregarding the enforcement notice.
The FTT's decision was set aside.
The FTT erred in law by prioritizing the number of caravan pitches over compliance with the enforcement notice and established planning decisions. Its decision indirectly challenged the enforcement notice, which is impermissible.
Similar Cases
The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)
Willoughby (610) Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2553 (Admin)
Sophie Catherine Mary Dean & Ors v Simon Mitchell & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1479 (KB)
Ross Park Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1334 (Admin)