Appellant using land for caravan site – Respondent serving enforcement notice requiring removal of caravans and tents – Appellant claiming caravans were permitted development – Whether evidence sufficient for conviction for failure to comply with enforcement notice – Justices finding appellant guilty – Appeal dismissed
On 9 July 1992 an enforcement notice was issued by the respondent against the appellant alleging a breach of planning control, namely, that there had been an unauthorised change of use of land at Cae Du, Beddgelert, Gwynedd, from agricultural use to use as a camping and caravan site. The notice required the unauthorised use to cease and all the caravans and tents to be removed from the land.
On 31 July 1998 an information was preferred by the respondent alleging that the appellant had failed to comply with the enforcement notice contrary to section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by section 8 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. It was common ground that there were four caravans on the land. Two were occupied by paying clients and one was static and used as a reception point and tool storage for the caravan site. The fourth was situated in a separate enclosure of its own and across a road from the dwelling-house known as Cae Du. It was also agreed that the appellant had been using the land as a caravan site for 17 years and that the site was signposted as a caravan site from the nearby road. At the hearing of the information the justices found the appellant guilty of failing to comply with the notice and fined him £100.
The appellant appealed, contending that the enforcement notice had not removed the rights provided by Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 1995. In the circumstances specified in para 3 of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the Order allowed up to three caravans on five acre holdings without a site licence for up to 28 days a year for the purpose of human habitation. The appellant submitted that he was entitled to keep the fourth caravan on the land by virtue of the rights provided by the 1995 Order, in that the caravan fell within Schedule 1 to the 1960 Act, which permitted “Use within curtilage of a dwellinghouse; use of a caravan within the curtilage for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse falls within the primary use of the dwellinghouse, and does not require separate planning permission.”
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. The justices had found that the fourth caravan was outside the curtilage of the nearby farm house and that, accordingly, the fourth caravan was not permitted by Schedule 1 to the 1960 Act and required separate planning permission. The justices had properly borne in mind that the burden of proof was on the prosecution to show that there had been an unauthorised change of use, since the appellant had raised the defence that the development was permitted under the 1995 Order, and they had been entitled to conclude that it was not permitted.
2. The enforcement notice had to be looked at in its entirety and, accordingly, the justices had been entitled to find that, if one caravan did not comply with the notice, the offence of failing to comply with the notice was made out by the prosecution. They had been entitled to conclude that, because the fourth caravan was in breach of the notice, the notice had not been complied with and that all the caravans had to be removed.
John Dowse (instructed by Martin & Nierada, of Pwllheli) appeared for the appellant; Peter Moss (instructed by the solicitor to Conwy County Borough Council) appeared for the respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
