The owner of a caravan site next to the Barley Mow Public House in Uckfield, East Sussex, must wait for a High Court ruling on whether she can keep caravans there on a permanent basis for residential use.
Proprietor Nita Smith, who purchased the site on Eastbourne Road, Ridgewood, Uckfield, in August 1999, is challenging a DETR inspectors decision in June 2000 that the premises could only be used for holiday accommodation.
She maintains that there is no material difference, in planning terms, between the seasonal use of the site by holidaymakers and its use for residential accommodation throughout the year.
Counsel for Smith, Michael Druce, argued before Crane J yesterday that the inspector had erred in concluding that the site was unsuitable for continuous occupation. The inspector had based that view upon the fact that only basic facilities were available, with no shop or recreation area.
However, Mr Druce said the accommodation afforded by the 30 caravans was at the low end of the private rented housing market, and that it served a range of residential needs for those on low incomes. The inspectors conclusion had, he said, failed to take into account that the nature of the facilities made the site affordable and attractive to the market at which it was directed.
He also pointed out that for the four years over which permanent residential use had been made of the site, the caravans had achieved a high level of occupation of between 85% and 100%, indicating a strong demand for that type of accommodation.
However, David Forsdick, counsel for the DETR, argued that permanent use was unacceptable in policy terms. He said the inspector had been entitled, after seeing the facilities for himself, to find that they were unsuitable for permanent use on a site that was built only for seasonal use.
The court has reserved judgement.
Smith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another Queens Bench Division: Adminitrative Court (Crane J) 23 November 2000
Michael Druce (instructed by Paul Gromett & Co) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, Wealden District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
- PLS News 24/11/00
