Planning permission allowing part of caravan park to be used for permanent residential occupation – Owner of caravan park serving notice to quit on defendant – Whether defendant’s plot protected – Mobile Homes Act 1983 – Judge finding defendant enjoying security of tenure – Appeal allowed
The claimant was the owner of a caravan park that, in November 1963, had been granted permanent planning permission for use as such, subject to a condition that the caravans should be occupied only between 1 March and 1 October in each year. The permission and its conditions have since been amended on numerous occasions, to keep it in line with relevant planning legislation.
In October 1996 planning permission was granted, allowing for 42 caravans to be occupied for permanent residential purposes. This was subject to a condition prohibiting permanent residential use of caravans outside a defined area of the park that was sufficiently above ground level for there to be no risk of flooding during the winter months.
In 1987 the defendant was employed to work at the park and was allowed to live in a rent-free caravan. In 1997, when the claimant acquired the site, the defendant was no longer employed by the park, but remained in occupation and was required to pay rent. In April 2000 the claimant served two notices on the defendant. The first was a notice to quit, and the second was a notice purporting to terminate any licence. The defendant maintained that he was entitled to remain in occupation.
The issues were whether the plot occupied by the defendant was a protected site for the purposes of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and whether the defendant was entitled to security of tenure under section 1(1) of the Act. The judge found that the caravan was stationed on a plot that formed part of a site where some caravans did have permission for permanent occupation, and that the defendant enjoyed security of tenure under section 1(1) of the Act. The claimant appealed.
Held:The appeal was allowed.
The judge had erred in his construction and interpretation of the statutory provisions. The site licence distinguished between different parts of the caravan park, and it was therefore suitable, when deciding whether a site was a protected site for the purposes of the Act, to treat the park as being divided into different sites.
In the instant case, different areas of the park were treated differently by the licence, depending upon their susceptibility to flooding. On that basis, the plot upon which the defendant’s caravan was stationed could not be treated as the same part of the caravan site as that area upon which permanent residential use was permitted. Accordingly, the plot was not a protected site, and the defendant was not entitled to security of tenure under the Act:Balthazar v Mullane [1985] 2 EGLR 260 and Holmes v Cooper [1985] 1 WLR 1060 considered.
Kim Lewison QC (instructed by Tozers, of Exeter) appeared for the claimant; Tom Weekes (instructed by Twitchen Musters & Kelly, of Southend-on-Sea) appeared for the defendant.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
