Residential caravan site — Proposed increase in number of caravans — Whether increase amounting to material change of use — Claim dismissed
The claimant owned a 6-acre site adjoining a public house. In 2003, an inspector appointed by the first defendant secretary of state certified the lawful use of the land as a residential caravan site for four caravans, as defined by section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, pursuant to section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the basis that the use had continued without planning permission for a period of at least 10 years prior to the date of the application.
The claimant unsuccessfully submitted applications to the second defendant planning authority for certificates of lawfulness of proposed use for, respectively, eight, 15, 30 and 50 residential caravans on the land. The first defendant’s inspector refused the claimant’s appeals pursuant to section 195 of the 1990 Act on the ground that an increase in the number of caravans would amount to a material change of use of the land, which would require planning permission.
The claimant applied under section 288 of the 1990 Act to quash that decision. He argued that an increase in the number of caravans on land certified for lawful use as a residential caravan site could not amount to a material change of use.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
An increase in the number of caravans on a site previously certified for lawful use could, as a matter of law, amount to a material change of use when considered in its proper planning context. The original certificate of lawful use had been issued with reference to a specific number of caravans and any other conclusion would render the extant certificate meaningless. It would also deprive the local planning authority of control over the use of the land for stationing any number of caravans, contrary to the regulatory scheme of planning control under the 1990 Act.
Whether a change in the use of land could be said to be “material” was a question of fact and degree that had to be assessed in each particular case. The increase in numbers would change the character of the use of the land and could have a material impact on local amenity, the environment, or could change the appearance of the land.
On the facts of the instant case, the inspector was entitled to find that an increase in the number of caravans would be a material change of use and would, therefore, planning permission.
Richard Humphreys (instructed by Leigh, Day & Co) appeared for the claimant; Mark Beard (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
