CA-2025-000342 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1442

This appeal is concerned with the relationship between planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”) and the licensing of caravan sites under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (“the 1960 Act”). It is common ground that there is some overlap between the two regimes, but it has been decided that the determination of an application for a site licence under the 1960 Act, must disregard “purely planning considerations”. What does that mean?

The appellant, the operator of a caravan site, says that the licensing authority under the 1960 Act must disregard a final determination under the TCPA 1990 that engineering operations which have taken place, such as the construction of hardstandings for caravans, were a breach of planning control and must be removed and the land restored in accordance with an enforcement notice. Consequently, the decision-maker may grant a licence subject to a condition requiring those hardstandings to be provided for mobile homes. The appellant then says that that condition would entitle it to rely upon a general planning permission granted pursuant to a development order, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order (SI 2015 No. 596 – “the GPDO 2015”). Class B of Part 5 of Sched.2 to the GPDO 2015 grants a permitted development right for development required by the conditions of a site licence granted under the 1960 Act (“the Class B right”). The appellant accepts that that right could only apply to the provision of future hardstandings and related development, not the existing hardstandings. (Footnote: ¹) But because the enforcement notice could not prevent future reliance on the Class B right in that way, the appellant submits that it would be irrational for the local planning authority to require compliance with that notice, as the appellant would be entitled to put essentially the same development back in place in reliance upon its Class B right (Footnote: ²).

The upshot of the appellant’s argument is that the decisions of the Planning Inspector dismissing its appeal against the enforcement notice and of Mr. Timothy Mould KC (then a Deputy High Court judge) dismissing its appeal under s.289 of the TCPA 1990 against the Inspector’s decision, would cease to have any legal effect. The Inspector’s decisions (i) that the hardstandings and other engineering works constituted a breach of planning control as development without planning permission, (ii) to refuse to grant planning permission for that development because of harm to heritage assets and the landscape and (iii) to require those works to be removed and the land restored, would all be negated. In effect planning permission for the engineering operations will have been obtained simply by virtue of a site licensing decision under the 1960 Act, without any planning authority having decided that that permission be granted on the merits. We have to decide whether the two regimes interact in this way.

In 2016, the appellant, Haytop Country Park Limited, acquired a caravan site known as Haytop Country Park (“the site”) near Whatstandwell in the Derwent Valley in Derbyshire. The respondent, Amber Valley Borough Council (“the Council”), is the local planning authority and also the caravan site licensing authority for its area.

The “site” lies to the south of the Derwent and slopes down towards the river. The whole of the site and the surrounding area lie within the defined buffer zone of the Derwent Mills World Heritage site and a Special Landscape Area designated in the Amber Valley Local Plan. It is also adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It contains woods which form part of the grounds formerly associated with Alderwasley Hall, a listed building, and which are included within the Alderwasley Conservation Area. In this area the World Heritage site runs along the bottom of the river valley and encompasses the Derwent, the A6 and a railway line. Views of the site are obtainable from inter alia the valley bottom.

In 1978 a tree preservation order was made under planning legislation protecting part of the site as woodland and prohibiting the felling of any trees within that designated area without the Council’s consent.

The site has the benefit of two planning permissions, one granted in 1952 and the other in 1966. They permit the use of the site for up to 60 caravans. Condition 2 of the 1966 permission restricted the siting of caravan “standings” to the areas A to H shown on an attached plan, which can no longer be found.

In 1968 a site licence was granted under the 1960 Act which referred to the planning permissions granted in 1952 and in 1966. Condition 2 restricted the number of caravans on the site to 60 and condition 8 required each caravan to be on a hardstanding. Condition 4 provided that the “standings” should be sited within the areas A to H shown on the plan attached to the licence. That plan still exists and it has been assumed that those areas within which hardstandings and caravans are to be located are essentially the same as those shown on the plan attached to the 1966 permission (although the orientation of individual units may vary between the two drawings in view of the terms of condition 2 of the 1966 permission).

In March 2017 the appellant unlawfully felled 121 trees in the woodland area protected by the 1978 tree preservation order. It then carried out engineering works which included earth moving and reprofiling of the land, to create a series of levelled terraces supported by retaining walls, the laying of concrete bases and an internal roadway. In all, 27 concrete bases or hardstandings were laid, mostly on ground carved out of the sloping hillside, but a few on ground which was already level.

On 15 March 2019 the Council issued two enforcement notices under s.172 of the TCPA 1990 alleging breaches of development control. The second related to the engineering operations. The appellant appealed. On 20 August 2021 the Planning Inspector issued her decision dismissing the appeal against that notice. On 15 July 2022 the appellant’s appeal to the High Court under s.289 of the TCPA 1990 was dismissed. The enforcement notice was of no effect until the final determination of that appeal. The notice then allowed 6 months for compliance.

On 27 January 2021 the Council served a tree replacement notice under s.207 of the TCPA 1990 requiring the planting of 100 trees in positions shown on a plan by 25 February 2021. The appellant appealed against that notice to a Planning Inspector. By a decision letter dated 4 March 2024 the Inspector largely upheld the notice.

On 26 April 2022 the Council granted a new site licence in response to an application by the appellant under s.3 of the 1960 Act. The appellant applied for a licence for 30 residential caravans. But the conditions of the licence granted by the Council limited the number of caravans to three in locations said not to interfere with the requirements of the tree replanting notice or the remedial steps, in particular reprofiling of the land, required by the enforcement notice against the engineering operations carried out in breach of planning control.

The appellant appealed against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) (“the FTT”) under s.7 of the 1960 Act. On 6 July 2023 the FTT issued its amended decision in which it allowed the appellant’s appeal to the extent of ordering the Council to issue a caravan site licence for occupation by up to 18 caravans on the positions shown on an attached plan. The FTT rejected the appellant’s submission that their determination of how many caravans to authorise under the site licence should disregard the requirements of the tree replacement notice. But the FTT also decided that their determination should not have regard to the requirements of the enforcement notice against the unlawful engineering operations.

The Council appealed against that decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (“the UT”) where the matter came before Mr. Martin Rodger KC, the Deputy Chamber President. There was no cross appeal by the appellant.

On 22 August 2024 the UT gave its decision, allowing the Council’s appeal. The Tribunal accepted their case that the FTT should not have decided to disregard the outcome of the enforcement notice appeal or “the planning baseline”. It should not have imposed a condition as to the number and position of the caravans authorised which was inconsistent with that established planning position. The UT identified three pitches lying outside the area covered by the enforcement notice and so directed that those be added to the three pitches which the Council had accepted in its licensing decision dated 26 April 2022.

The upshot is that this court is asked to resolve the difference of law between the two Tribunals: can a site licence be granted for the siting of caravans in locations which are inconsistent with the planning permissions upon which the licence application is based, or which is inconsistent with the determination of the planning rights in the statutory process for taking enforcement action against breaches of planning control?