Crown Office List and Another (Appellant (Plaintiff) v North Norfolk District Council (Respondent

This is an appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division relating to the validity of a condition in a caravan site licence issued under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 ("the Act").

Section 1(1) of the Act is as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, no occupier of land shall after the commencement of this Act cause or permit any part of the land to be used as a caravan site unless he is the holder of a site licence (that is to say, a licence under this Part of this Act authorising the use of land as a caravan site) for the time being in force as respects the land so used".

Section 1(2) makes it an offence to contravene the provisions of section 1(1).

Section 3(3) of the Act provides:

"A local authority may on an application under this section issue a site licence in respect of the land if, and only if, the applicant is, at the time when the site licence is issued, entitled to the benefit of a permission for the use of the land as a caravan site granted under Part III of [the Town and Country Planning Act 1971] otherwise than by a development order".

Section 5(1), which is of central importance in the present case, provides:

"A site licence issued by a local authority in respect of any land may be so issued subject to such conditions as the authority may think it necessary or desirable to impose on the occupier of the land in the interests of persons dwelling thereon in caravans, or of any other class of persons, or of the public at large; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a site licence may be issued subject to conditions—

• (a) for restricting the occasions on which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation, or the total number of caravans which are so stationed at any one time;

• (b) for controlling (whether by reference to their size, the state of their repair or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, any other feature the types of caravan which are stationed on the land;

• (c) for regulating the positions in which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation and for prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating, the placing or erection on the land, at any time when caravans are so stationed, of structures and vehicles of any description whatsoever and of tents;

• (d) for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes;

• (e) for securing that, at all times when caravans are stationed on the land, proper measures are taken for preventing and detecting the outbreak of fire and adequate means of fighting fire are provided and maintained;

• (f) for securing that adequate sanitary facilities, and such other facilities, services or equipment as may be specified, are provided for the use of persons dwellings on the land in caravans and that, at all times when caravans are stationed thereon for the purposes of human habitation, any facilities and equipment so provided are properly maintained".

By section 7, a person aggrieved by any condition subject to which a site licence is issued to him may appeal to the magistrates' court and the court if satisfied that the condition is unduly burdensome, may vary or cancel the condition.

Section 8 permits the holder of a site licence to apply to the local authority to alter any condition of a site licence and if such application is refused, he may likewise appeal to the magistrates. Section 8 makes no provision as to the grounds upon which such an appeal may be made.

As appears from section 3(3) it is a prerequisite to the grant of a site licence that the applicant should, at the date of issue of the site licence, have planning permission to use the land as a caravan site. At the date of issue of the licence in the present case the landowner (who is the appellant Mr. Babbage) had (and still has) "deemed" planning permission for the use of the site as a caravan site. That permission was unconditional.

The caravan site is on the cliffs overlooking the sea at Runton, near Cromer. It comprises about 8 acres. On and for many years before the date when the Act came into force the greater part of the site had been used as a caravan site. The deemed (and unconditional) planning permission arises from the provision of section 17 of the Act relating to sites which were in use as caravan sites at the commencement of the Act and which (as in this case) were also used as caravan sites on 9th March 1960 (the date of the publication of the bill). The then owner on 24th October 1960 applied for a site licence in accordance with the provisions of section 17. No planning permission having been granted within the following six months and no enforcement notice having been served before the end of such period, the effect of section 17 was the unconditional deemed planning permission to which I have referred. The existence of the deemed permission is not in dispute and I need not go further into the detail of the statutory provisions. The fact that deemed planning permission had been granted seems to have been overlooked and in 1961 express planning permission was granted but it is common ground that it was of no effect.

I should mention, for completeness that a very small part of the site (the field OS 177) is subject to express planning permission and these proceedings are not concerned with it.

A site licence was granted to the appellant by the respondent Council (the North Norfolk District Council) on 22nd November 1979. That licence contained the following condition (which is numbered 14):

"14. Limit of occupation

No caravan shall be occupied between the 1st November and the 19th March on any part of the site. All caravans shall be removed from the site on or before the thirty-first day of October in each year and no caravan shall be placed on the site before the twentieth day of March in the following year".

In 1987 the appellant made an application to the Council to vary the site licence by excluding Condition 14. That application was rejected on 29th July 1987.

The appellant presented a complaint to the magistrates by way of appeal from that decision. The complaint was dismissed.

Although the application to the respondent Council was for the deletion of Condition 14 the issue before the magistrates was limited to the question whether the second sentence of Condition 14 (which requires the removal of caravans from the site between 31st October in every year and 20th March in the following year) should be deleted. That remains the issue before this court.

The opinion of the magistrates was that:

• "(a) The removal condition was properly imposed in accordance with s. 5(1)(a) [of the Act].

• (b) The removal condition, although burdensome, was not unduly burdensome.

• (c) There was strong local opinion opposed to the removal of the winter storage condition.

• (d) The site abutted a conservation area where the landscape was important.

• (e) The caravans on the cliff top were detrimental to the visual amenity".

Accordingly the magistrates dismissed the appeal. Mr. Babbage appealed to the Divisional Court. In the case which had been stated by the magistrates the questions for the decision of the Divisional Court were as follows:

The Divisional Court answered the first question "Yes". On that answer, it was agreed between the parties that it was unnecessary to answer the second question.

In the argument before us, the sub-paragraphs of section 5(1) of the Act upon which the debate concentrated were (a) and (d). It is the respondent's case (and the Divisional Court was of the opinion) that the restriction imposed by the second sentence of Condition 14 was specifically authorised by sub-paragraph (a). That was on the basis that there were two ways in which a condition could effectively restrict the occasions on which caravans were stationed on the land for the purpose of human habitation. One is by requiring them to be removed completely. If they are not stationed on the land they cannot be stationed on it for the purpose of human habitation. The other is by requiring them to be vacated and not to be used for purposes of human habitation during certain periods of the year.

I do not feel able to accept that approach. It seems...