Application for site licence — Refusal to grant licence on basis that no planning permission for such use — No appeal against that decision — Renewed application 30 years later by successors in title unsuccessful — High Court refusing judicial review of decision to refuse licence — Court of Appeal dismissing appeal against that decision — Challenge to council’s decision theoretically possible after such long delay — Original decision held to be correct
The appellants owned and occupied 19.75 acres of land at Breach Barns Caravan Park, Galley Hill, Waltham Abbey, Essex. In 1961 their predecessors in title applied for a site licence for the whole of the 19.75 acres under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The council granted permission for use of 10.8 acres as a caravan site, but excluded other land including a 4.75-acre recreation area. In 1992 the appellants applied for a site licence in respect of two acres of the recreation area. The council took the view that they had no power to grant a site licence for the remainder because there was no planning permission for such a use.
The High Court refused to grant judicial review of that decision. The appellants appealed arguing that the 19.75 acres, less an area of woodland, was an existing site within sections 1(4) and 13 of the Act. The 4.75 acres — the recreation area, including the land occupied by the sewage treatment land — was land “used in conjunction with land on which” caravans were stationed and was thus part of the existing site under sections 1(4) and 13 of the Act.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The only land to which an application for a site licence could be related was an “existing site” and the only land which got deemed planning permission was an existing site: see Williams-Denton v Watford Rural District Council (1963) 15 P&CR 11.
2. Whether an area of land was comprised in an existing site for the purposes of section 13 of the 1960 Act was a matter of fact and degree: see R v Axbridge Rural District Council, ex parte Wormald [1964] 1 WLR 442.
3. After the passage of the 1960 Act it was inevitable that sometimes a local planning authority called upon to determine an application under section 17(2) would decide that the area of the existing site was smaller than that for which the applicant contended. The planning authority would then use a planning permission relating to a smaller area and decide that the balance was not part of the existing site.
4. The appellants’ predecessors in title had taken no steps to challenge the 1961 decision that part of the land was not an existing caravan site. Theoretically, it was still open to an applicant to do so even after a lapse of time of more than 30 years.
5. However, the words used in the notice granting planning permission established that the planning authority applied the correct test and granted permission upon the “existing site”. The use of the expression “existing site comprising approximately 10.8 acres of land” indicated that they had the statutory language in mind. The judge was right to conclude that they were entitled to reach the conclusion they did.
James Munby QC and Robert Beecroft (instructed by Tozers, of Exeter) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Straker (instructed by the solicitor to Epping Forest District Council) appeared for the council.
