Amendment of condition — Caravan site — Existing planning permission — Caravans required to be removed during winter season — Applicant seeking to amend condition to allow caravans to remain on site at all times — Whether planning condition could be attached — Whether extant condition to be dispensed with — Application refused
In 1988 planning permission was granted for a caravan site at Poppyfields Caravan Park, Santon, Downham. Planning permission was granted subject to the following conditions: (a) the site was not to be used between November 30 and March 1 of each year; and (b) the caravans were to be removed in each year. The conditions were said to be necessary in the interest of amenity.
The applicant appealed against condition (b), ie did not object to non-occupancy during the winter months, but wanted the caravans on site at all times. However, the inspector refused the amendment. Counsel for the applicant (who did not appear at the inquiry) argued that the inspector had applied a different test from that in Circular 1/85 in considering whether to retain an extant condition. It was submitted that instead appropriate conditions, required to meet the need, would be conditions restricting the size of the caravans on the site and the size of site paraphernalia (sheds, etc). The test which had been applied by the inspector was, “whether the proposed variation of the condition would lead to harm to the character of the surrounding forest and farm land”. Circular 1/85 required the test of whether “if planning permission would be granted today, would such a condition need to be attached…”.
Held The application was refused.
1. The inspector had to answer the question whether there was a definite need for the conditions in view of the harm to the surrounding area in the light of the structure and emerging local plans.
2. The emerging local plan stated that static caravans were not normally permitted in landscape areas. In the present case, the need for the condition directly related to the character of the rural area and the court was satisfied that the inspector had properly considered the question of need.
3. The applicant had also submitted that the inspector should have considered resolving the planning objection by attaching a condition removing the applicant’s permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (SI 1988 No 1813) to erect garden fences and sheds.
4. However, the applicant had failed to suggest such a condition at the inquiry, although it was standard practice for the inspector to consider conditions with the parties.
5. The court was satisfied that there was no obligation on the inspector to cast around for a condition not profered by the parties: see Top Deck Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] JPL 961, CA. After an inquiry had been conducted an applicant could not come to the court to appeal against a decision on the basis that the inspector should have thought of conditions not even suggested to him.
6. The essential point was whether static caravans were more likely to attract permanent structures than mobile caravans and whether — albeit that occupancy was going to cease in the winter — the removal of caravans was still necessary. It was clear that the inspector considered all the issues before him and the application was refused.
Murziline Parchment (instructed by Tozers, of Exeter) appeared for the applicant; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Mark Lowe (instructed by solicitor to Forest Heath District Council) appeared for the local planning authority.
