Croyde Area Residents Association v North Devon District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lieven DBE |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 646 (Admin) |
| Date | 19 March 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2368/2020 |
[2021] EWHC 646 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Lieven
Case No: CO/2368/2020
The Queen on the Application of
and
Mr Richard Turney and Mr Alex Shattock (instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr Peter Wadsley (instructed by North Devon District Council) for the Defendant
Mr James Maurici QC and Ms Heather Sargent (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 4 and 5 March 2021
Approved Judgment
This is an application for judicial review to quash the grant of planning permission to the Interested Party on 27 January 2014 for the use of lodges, static caravans and touring caravans at Ruda Holiday Park, Croyde, Braunton Devon (“the Holiday Park”). It can be seen from that opening sentence that the decision under challenge is very long outside the normal 6 week period for judicial review of planning decisions set out in CPR54.5.
The Claimant is an unincorporated association established with the purpose of protecting and preserving the area, including Croyde and the surrounding countryside, as one of outstanding national beauty. The Interested Party is the owner and operator of the Holiday Park. The Defendant is the Local Planning Authority (“ LPA”).
The issues that arise in this case are:
a. Is the claim statute barred by reason of s.284 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA”);
b. If it is not statute barred, should an extension of time be granted;
c. Even if an extension of time is granted, should relief be refused in any event.
Both the Defendant and the Interested Party accept that the 2014 planning permission was unlawful. The Defendant further accepts that the permission should be quashed. The Interested Party argues that it should not be quashed.
The Holiday Park is a large one with separate areas for lodges, tourers, static caravans, camping and various amenity spaces, and it lies close to Croyde Bay Beach. It has been in existence for many years. On the northerly elevation of the site are several fields, including one known as the Service Field, which lies to the North East of the Holiday Park. Historically there has been no camping or caravans on the Service Field and holidaymakers at the site did not have access to it until 2020.
The Holiday Park and the area within the 2014 planning permission, which extends well beyond the Holiday Park, lies within the Area of Outstanding National Beauty (“AONB”).
The Planning History
In October 2013, the Interested Party applied to the Defendant for planning permission for an “extension of the time limits during which the holiday park may be open” (Application ref 56528).
It is clear from the Planning Statement accompanying the 2014 application, and the subsequent consultation responses, that this application was viewed by all parties as an application for changing opening times only. The Planning Statement notes:
“1. This Application seeks to extend the open period of the Holiday Park.
2. This Application has three elements:-
2.1 The timber clad lodges presently have Planning Permission to permit them to be open between 15st [sic] March and 15th January of the following year.
This Application seeks to increase the open period of these lodges such that the usable open period will be between 1st February and 15th January of the following year.
…”
The Planning Statement then set out the details of the existing opening hours and why those hours restricted the Park's ability to operate.
On 27 January 2014, planning permission was granted by the Defendant by a delegated decision of its Officer (“the 2014 permission”). The description of the development in the 2014 permission was:
“Application to allow the use of the lodges, static & touring caravans between 01 February & 15 January each year and to allow use of swimming pool, club house & other communal facilities on the park within these revised opening periods (amended description) at Ruda Holiday Park Moor Lane Croyde Braunton.”
The Defendant's decision report accompanying the decision notice stated:
“This planning application does not propose increasing the amount of holiday accommodation or associated facilities in this area, only to be able to use the holiday accommodation over an increased time within the year…”
It is clear from the Officer's report that the Defendant's Officer, in granting permission, intended the grant to affect the opening times of the existing holiday accommodation only. The application was considered and determined on that basis.
The 2014 permission was subject to four conditions. The first condition required the permission to be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of grant. The second condition was:
“The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the application, number 6800-LP and received on 21st October 2013 (‘the approved plans’).”
Plan 6800-LP is a site location plan. As noted above, it mistakenly shows a large area of land edged red, including land which is owned by the Interested Party but not used for camping and caravans (including the Service Field), and c.12 hectares of land owned by third parties. The Interested Party currently owns c.6 hectares of green undeveloped land inside the red line and a further c.4.5 hectares in addition to that which was limited to tented camping and tented and/or touring areas. It appears from this that roughly 22 hectares of land were included within the red line which before 2014 had no permission for caravans or lodges to be stationed.
Condition Three provided:
“The timber clad lodges, static and touring caravans occupying the site relating to this permission shall be used for the provision of short let holiday accommodation operating only between the 1st February and 15th January the following year. They shall not be occupied as permanent dwellings and shall not be occupied by any one person for a period exceeding 28 days in any calendar year. The owner or operator shall maintain a register of occupants for each calendar year. This shall be made available on request for inspection by any duly authorised officer of the [LPA]”.
Condition Four provided:
“The swimming pool, clubhouse and other communal facilities hereby approved shall only be open between the 1st February and 15th January the following year.”
The fact that the 2014 application was never intended to extend the area of the Holiday Park and that the inclusion of the Service Field (and other land) within the red line was a mistake is accepted by the Defendant and the Interested Party. It appears that the red line was simply drawn in the wrong place and the LPA failed to spot the error.
In November 2016, the Interested Party submitted a planning application to extend the Holiday Park including stationing some 50 caravans within the Service Field (application ref 61826) (“the 2016 application”). It is therefore clear that at this point the Interested Party did not consider that the 2014 permission granted anything other than what had been applied for, namely an extension of the opening hours of the existing buildings and structures on the site.
The 2016 application was controversial and met objection from (amongst others) the National Trust and the regional AONB Partnership Officer. Their view was that the proposal failed to preserve the appearance of the AONB. The Interested Party amended the application to provide for 22 caravans to be stationed on the Service Field; and amended it again to reduce to 12 static/lodge caravans. The 2016 application was eventually withdrawn by the Interested Party in December 2017.
In January 2018, the Interested Party applied for a Lawful Development Certificate (“LDC”) under s.192 TCPA for the siting of caravans on the Service Field. The central contention in the LDC application was that the 2014 permission permitted the use of the entire red line area on plan 6800-LP for the stationing of caravans.
The LDC application was refused by the Defendant by delegated decision on 31 May 2018. The Interested Party appealed this decision at the end of November 2018 and the appeal was heard by an Inspector by way of a hearing in February 2020. The single issue which arose in the appeal was essentially a question of law, namely the effect of the 2014 permission. The Defendant maintained that the 2014 permission did not have the effect claimed. However, the Inspector allowed the appeal and granted the LDC on 21 February 2020.
I will refer to the detail of the various periods below, but the present challenge was lodged on 3 July 2020.
The Grounds of Challenge
The Claimant advances four grounds of challenge to the 2014 permission. Most unusually these grounds of challenge are not disputed by the Defendant or the Interested Party and do not lie at the centre of this case. It is therefore appropriate for me to deal with them relatively shortly.
Ground One is that the Defendant erroneously granted permission for a different purpose and in respect of a different area of land than it intended. The Interested Party was applying for the alteration of the operational season of the Holiday Park, not for extension of the Area. The Defendant therefore failed to take into account a material consideration, namely that the permission...
To continue reading
Request your trial