Stationing of mobile home on land – Breach of planning control – Decision of inspector in favour of owner of mobile home – Subsequent change of use – Whether change of material use within time limit – Whether decision of first inspector res judicata – Appeal dismissed
The appellant rented a plot of land in 1982 in an area of open land designated for agricultural use and lived there with his family in a mobile home. In August 1984 a completion notice was confirmed giving the appellant one year to make use of an extant planning permission to build a house on the land. This building was erected on a different part of the land from that for which planning permission had been granted. On August 1 1985 the local authority served enforcement notices regarding the erection of ‘a structure’ and a material change of use. Soon after the enforcement notice was served, the building, a bungalow, was completed and the appellant moved in, his family moving over from the mobile home in April 1986. The appellant had appealed against the two enforcement notices. In August 1986 his appeal was allowed, against the first notice on the grounds that the breach of planning permission which had occurred was not that described in the notice, and against the second on a technical ground. The inspector held that at the time the enforcement notice was served, the use of the land as a caravan site constituted permitted development pursuant to Class XXII of Schedule I to GDO 1977, which permitted such use in any of the circumstances specified in paras 2-9 of Sched 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. In October 1986 the local authority served two further enforcement notices against which the appellant appealed. The inspector quashed the first, but upheld the second regarding the bungalow as a new and separate dwelling which had been erected without planning permission, although he extended the period for demolition. The appellant remained in occupation of the house and his daughter lived in the mobile home. On July 23 1992 the council served another enforcement notice relating to the mobile home, but did not serve the daughter. Four days later the 10- year rule introduced by section 4 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 came into effect providing that no enforcement action might be taken after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the date of the relevant breach of planning control. The appellant appealed unsuccessfully against the 1992 notice on grounds (b)(c)(d) in section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. On an application to quash that decision, the judge upheld the inspector’s decision. The appellant appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The purpose of the presence of the caravan on the land reverted to being a purpose for use as human habitation which was not protected by Class XXII and was alien to the permitted agricultural use of the plot after the appellant moved out. The purpose for which a caravan was stationed could be relevant in determining whether development of the land in the sense of a material change of use had occurred However, the use of the mobile home for human habitation in 1992-93 constituted a breach of planning control, not protected by the 10- year limit, and the local authority was in time to stop it continuing.
2. The decision of the first inspector was binding and its merits could not be reopened when the court considered the third inspector’s decision. This was a true case of res judicata and the determination in favour of the appellant against an enforcement notice on any of grounds (b) to (e) under section 88(2) of the 1971 Act gave rise to an estoppel per rem judicatam.
Lord Kingsland QC and Alan Masters (instructed by Stephen Fidler & Co) appeared for the appellant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
