Case No. UKUT-334-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-88

4.Tallington Lakes is a leisure park where numerous outdoor activities are carried on, and a static caravan site. There is a dispute as to whether any of the caravans are in permanent residential use, and that point is not for decision in this appeal.5.Section 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 requires the occupier of land used as a caravan site to hold a site licence:“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, no occupier of land shall after the commencement of this Act cause or permit any part of the land to be used as a caravan site unless he is the holder of a site licence (that is to say, a licence under this Part of this Act authorising the use of land as a caravan site) for the time being in force as respects the land so used.(4) In this Part of this Act the expression “caravan site” means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed.”6.Section 3 of the 1960 Act makes provision for applications for and the grant of site licences. Section 3(3) says:“(3) A local authority may on an application under this section issue a site licence in respect of the land if, and only if, the applicant is, at the time when the site licence is issued, entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site … otherwise than by a development order.So site licences are closely linked with planning permission.7.The appellant’ was granted a site licence (licence number 84/2) in 2003, in response to its application. The application was for a seasonal caravan site, in use from 1 March to 31 January each year. The licence recited that the appellant had planning permission for “the use of the said land as a caravan site”; it was granted subject to a condition “that the total number of static holiday caravans sited shall not exceed 385.” A list of planning permissions was scheduled to the licence, and there were seven altogether, whose terms we shall consider later; I refer to them as “the 7 Permissions” so as to identify the seven permissions referred to in licence 84/2.8.Section 8 of the 1960 Act enables a local authority to change the conditions attached to a site licence:“(1) The conditions attached to a site licence may be altered at any time (whether by the variation or cancellation of existing conditions, or by the addition of new conditions, or by a combination of any such methods) by the local authority, but before exercising their powers under this subsection the local authority shall afford to the holder of the licence an opportunity of making representations.”9.In April 2014 the Mobile Homes Act 2013 came into force; it amended and updated the licensing and regulatory regime for caravan sites, and one of the changes it made was to enable local authorities to charge an annual fee to the holder of a licence for a “relevant protected site”, defined in section 5A(5) of the 1960 Act as:“land in respect of which a site licence is required under this Part, other than land in respect of which the relevant planning permission under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the site licence is …—(a) expressed to be granted for holiday use only, or(b) otherwise so expressed or subject to such conditions that there are times of the year when no caravan may be stationed on the land for human habitation.”10.The omitted words relate to an exception that is not relevant here. The definition is in identical terms to the definition of a “protected site” in section 1(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; where an agreement entitles a person to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site, and to occupy it as their only or main residence, then the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies to that agreement and the person has the benefit of the regulatory regime and security of tenure provided for in the 1983 Act.11.The respondent formed the view that that the site was being used for residential occupation. In March 2016 it wrote to the appellant asking it to surrender its licence for alteration so that conditions appropriate to residential occupation could be imposed (as provided for in section 11 of the 1960 Act). It received a reply from Tallington Lakes Leisure Parks Limited stating that the site was not a residential site; no surrender was made. In April 2016 the respondent told the appellant that it was going to alter the conditions of the licence, sending a copy of the conditions to be imposed and inviting representations as section 8 of the 1960 Act requires. No representations were made.12.An altered site licence (now numbered 84/3) was issued on 18 May 2016 and sent to the appellant. It recited the 7 Permissions again, and stated that it “permits the land situated at Tallington Lakes … to be used as a Mobile Home Site subject to the Schedule of Conditions attached hereto for not more than 385 caravans at any one time”, and there is an extensive schedule of conditions attached.13.Section 7(1) of the 1960 Act enables the licence holder to appeal to the FTT against any of the conditions attached to the licence within 28 days of its issue; no appeal was made.14.The respondent did not charge the appellant a fee for the issue of the licence nor for the first year of its operation; but it later invoiced it for the annual fees for 2017 and 2018. Those fees remain unpaid, amounting to £4,173.50.15.Section 5A(3) of the 1960 Act enables the local authority, when the fee is overdue, to apply to the FTT for an order that the licence holder pay it; where such an order is made and then not complied with the local authority may apply to the FTT for an order revoking the licence. On 8 July 2019 the respondent applied to the FTT for an order that the appellant pay the unpaid licence fees.16.The appellant did not file a response to this application, but on 23 September 2019 made an application purporting to be an appeal against the licence conditions imposed in 2016 and requesting dismissal of the respondent’s application. The FTT directed that the two applications be heard together, and directed the determination of a number of preliminary issues. The one relevant to this appeal is that the appellant asserted that it is not the correct licence holder, and that instead the licence holder should be Tallington Lakes Leisure Park Limited which is the company managing the site. The FTT conducted a video hearing at which it noted that the appellant was not seeking to appeal any of the conditions; the FTT issued a decision on 25 March 2021 in which it determined that the licence was correctly issued to the appellant, Tallington Lakes Limited, and that the appellant had not asked for and was not granted an extension of time to appeal against the licence conditions. In its account of the facts in the opening paragraphs of the decision on the preliminary issues the FTT stated that the licence issued in 2016 was a licence to operate a “Relevant Permitted Site”, by which it no doubt meant a relevant protected site, but if I have understood correctly it had not heard argument on the point and did not make a determination to that effect.17.The FTT issued draft directions on 18 October 2021, stating that it would determine the respondent’s application without a hearing and that the directions would become effective on 1 November 2021 unless either party by 29 October 2021 requested alternative directions, The appellant did not request alternative directions but wrote on 18 October 2021 to the regional judge to complain about the FTT judge who had issued the draft directions, stating among other things that the direction that the application be decided on the papers is “absurd”. On 17 December 2021 the FTT issued its final decision. It stated in its description of the background that the 2016 licence “was a licence to operate a Relevant Permitted Site", and it ordered the appellant to pay the fees, on the basis that they were correctly charged and invoiced.18.The appellant sought permission to appeal on a number of grounds and was granted permission by the Upper Tribunal on three: first, on the ground that the licence was not correctly issued to it but should have been issued to Tallington Lakes Leisure Park Limited; second, that the FTT should not have determined the application in December 2021 without a hearing; and third, that the site is not a relevant protected site.