Automated Summary
Key Facts
Haytop Country Park Limited (respondent) operates a caravan site in Matlock, Derbyshire, which it purchased in 2016. The site has 30 existing park homes for residential use, but the appellant (Amber Valley Borough Council) argues this breaches planning permissions. The 1952 planning permission allowed 30 touring caravans (towable units), and a 1966 permission permitted 30 additional caravans for holiday use only. The respondent claims the 1960 Act's definition of 'caravan' includes park homes, retroactively legitimizing their use. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) directed the council to issue a license despite the planning dispute, but the Upper Tribunal found this irrational, as it forced the council to either grant a license authorizing illegal use or impose conditions making the license unusable. The case was remitted for re-hearing pending resolution of the planning dispute.
Issues
- Whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) erred in law by directing the grant of a caravan site licence when there was a genuine dispute over whether the proposed use of park homes on the site breached the existing 1952 planning permission, which only permitted touring caravans.
- Whether the FTT had the power to impose conditions on the licence under the 2014 regulations to resolve the conflict between the respondent's proposed use of park homes and the appellant's interpretation of planning control.
Holdings
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed the appeal, setting aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision to direct the grant of a caravan site licence. The court found the FTT erred in law by not considering the planning situation and directing a licence that placed the local authority in an impossible position. The matter was remitted for re-hearing.
Remedies
The appeal is allowed, and the First-tier Tribunal's decision requiring the grant of a caravan site licence is set aside. The matter is remitted to the FTT for a re-hearing. The parties are permitted to ask the FTT to stay the proceedings until the planning dispute is resolved by the planning inspectorate.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal found the First-tier Tribunal's decision to be unreasonable under the Wednesbury principle. The FTT's directive to grant a caravan site licence without resolving the underlying planning dispute placed the local authority in an impossible position of either authorising a use it considered unlawful or imposing conditions that rendered the licence ineffective. The Tribunal held that requiring a public authority to act in such a contradictory manner was irrational.
Precedent Name
Daejan Investments Limited v Benson and others
Cited Statute
- Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960
- Mobile Homes (Site Licensing) (England) Regulations 2014
Judge Name
Elizabeth Cooke
Passage Text
- 47. If the local authority was able, as I find it was, to consider whether there would be a breach of planning control in the operation of the site as the respondent wanted, then so was the FTT. In any event the FTT in considering the matter afresh is entitled to have regard to anything it thinks relevant, and it is difficult to see why the lawfulness of the proposed use of the site is not relevant to the question whether to grant a licence.
- 54. The appellant reasonably regards both those options as unacceptable, and I take the view that it was irrational to make a decision that placed a public authority in such an impossible position. The FTT could have stayed the appeal pending resolution of the planning position; or it could have upheld the authority's decision (leaving the respondent without a licence, but free to apply for one again if the planning position is resolved in its favour); or it could have directed the grant of a licence on condition that it would not take effect until the planning dispute was resolved in the respondent's favour.
- 48. To find otherwise would be to compel the conclusion that if a caravan site licence clearly and uncontroversially did not allow the type of site that an applicant proposed to operate, the local authority would be obliged... to grant a licence that permitted the use of the site in breach of planning permission. That would be an irrational outcome because it would force the local authority to permit something that is illegal.