Enforcement notice — Material change of use — Siting of caravan for occupation — Caravan well hidden from view — Contention of essential need — Inspector finding that visual intrusion limited — Inspector proceeding to dismiss appeal — Whether inspector dealing with issues raised — Appeal allowed
An enforcement notice was issued by the second defendants, Lake District Special Planning Board, against the stationing of a caravan immediately to the north of the Cove Caravan and Camping Park belonging to the appellant, Mrs G, at Watermillock, Penrith. The caravan was occupied by the second warden for the adjacent caravan and camping site. The presence of a second warden was necessitated by Mrs G’s ill-health (she and the first warden had houses alongside the site). Repeated applications for planning permission had been refused. The appeal was brought under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from the inspector’s dismissal of the appeal against the enforcement notice, which alleged a material change of use. The inspector stated that the decision turned on whether or not the caravan “unduly harms the appearance of the area and whether there is a need for the caravan on this land”. He stated that the board’s policy was to severely restrict the siting of static caravans unless an essential need could be shown. While he accepted that the caravan was well hidden from public view, he stated that it did not appear to be essential for the warden to be on the appeal site. A harmful precedent could be set if the caravan were allowed to remain in an environmentally sensitive area. Mrs G appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. With regard to the question of visual amenity. the inspector did not deal with the question of whether the siting of the caravan was “unduly” harmful. He found that the harm was “limited” and not “severe”, but he did not say whether it was acceptable.
2. As to need, he did not define the issue in terms of essential need. Mrs G was entitled to know why her need was insufficient.
3. Further, the inspector should have explained the relevance of the alternative sites he put forward.
4. Thus, in the absence of reasoning as to essential need, and having regard to the objections and the alternatives, the appeal was allowed.
Peter Village (instructed by Dickinson Dees, of Newcastle upon Tyne) appeared for the applicant, Mrs Gattward; and John Pugh-Smith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, Lake District Special Planning Board, did not appear and were not represented.
