Caravans present on land adjoining public house alleged to contravene enforcement notice prohibiting use for caravan site or storage – Owner receiving housing benefit claimed by occupiers – Whether security services provided by occupiers during owner’s absence rendered occupation ancillary to authorised use of site – Whether caravans providing barrier against intruders unlawfully “stored”
The accused owned a public house in Lincolnshire with adjoining land (the site) which was subject to enforcement notices prohibiting use of the site both as a caravan site and for the storage of caravans. In early November 1995 the accused closed the public house for the winter having asked W and P to look after it while he was away. W and P agreed and P took the keys. Towards the end of that month council officials found five caravans on the site. One caravan was occupied by W and her five children. Another was occupied by P. A third caravan was occupied by B, save for one room used by W. Two more caravans (the blocking caravans) had been placed so as to create a barrier against intruders. Housing benefit relating to the occupation by W and P had been paid direct to the accused since June 26 1995, and as regards B since August 14 1995. In December 1995 W and P moved into an adjoining cottage but continued to look after the security of the public house. Following the laying of an information by the council in November 1996 the accused was acquitted having satisfied the justices that the use of the occupied caravans was ancillary to the operation of the public house and that the blocking caravans had not been placed for purposes of storage. The council appealed to the Divisional Court by way of case stated.
Held The appeal was allowed and the justices were directed to convict.
1. The acquittal as regards the caravan occupied by B was perverse, there being no evidence to link his presence with the running of the pub.
2. While it was accepted that an otherwise unauthorised use was lawful if ancillary to an authorised one: see per Lord Bridge in Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board [1984] 2 EGLR 109 and that it was immaterial that security services could have been rendered from the cottage, neither proposition assisted the accused on the facts. The receipt of housing benefit afforded substantial evidence that the occupied caravans were providing accommodation quite independent of any employment by the occupiers in connection with the public house. The primary use of the land was the occupation of the caravans, as would have been the case even if it had only started when the accused went abroad.
3. Given the length of time that the blocking caravans had been present on the site, they were plainly being stored in contravention of the enforcement notice. It was immaterial that they had been put to a reasonable use.
James Findlay (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the appellants; David Forsdick (instructed by Hodgkinsons, of Skegness) appeared for the respondent.
