[2024] UKUT 237 (LC)

Haytop Country Park (the Park) is a caravan site near Whatstandwell in the Derwent Valley in Derbyshire. The whole of the Park and the surrounding area lie within the defined Buffer Zone of the Derwent Mills World Heritage Site, and within a Special Landscape Area, designated in the Amber Valley local plan. The site also adjoins a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The respondent acquired the Park in 2016 and wishes to operate it as a site for permanent residential occupation. In furtherance of that ambition it has carried out substantial engineering work including the felling of trees, extensive ground works to level and reprofile parts of the landscape, and the installation of new concrete plinths for permanent twin-unit park homes.

When the respondent carried out its development it believed that it was entitled to do so without planning permission under permitted development rights - but it was mistaken. The appellant, which is the local planning authority (the Council), served an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the works, and obtained a tree replacement order. The enforcement notice was confirmed by a planning inspector whose decision was upheld on appeal by the High Court.

This appeal is from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT) on the respondent’s appeal to it against conditions imposed by the Council when it determined an application by the respondent for a new site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the 1960 Act). The Park has planning permissions (the last granted in 1968) for up to 60 caravans, but the licence granted by the Council limited the number of permanent pitches to only three. The FTT allowed the respondent’s appeal and substituted a condition limiting the number of pitches to 18.

The issue in the appeal is whether the FTT erred in law in reaching its decision. The Council argues that it did, essentially because it overlooked the effect the licence conditions would have in indirectly legitimising development which was already the subject of the enforcement notice, but without having regard to the planning considerations which underpinned the notice. The respondent argues that the FTT was entitled to make the decision it did and did not fall into error in doing so.

At the hearing of the appeal the Council was represented by Mr Richard KimblinKC and the respondent by Mr Richard Harwood KC. I am grateful to them both for their submissions.