Esdell Caravan Parks Ltd v Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE WINN
Judgment Date04 November 1965
Judgment citation (vLex)[1965] EWCA Civ J1104-1
Date04 November 1965
CourtCourt of Appeal

[1965] EWCA Civ J1104-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

From the Divisional Court

Queen's Bench Division

Before

The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)

Lord Justice Harman and

Lord Justice Winn

Esdell Caravan Parks Limited
Respondents
and
Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council
Appellants

MR A. FLETCHER (instructed by Messrs Church, Adams, Tatham & Co., Agents for Messrs Wallington, Fabian & White, Watford) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.

MR JEREMIAH HARMAN (instructed by Messrs James & Charles Dodd) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
1

In 1960 Mrs Catherine Edy was the owner of a field near the village of Hogspit Bottom. The field was 4.8 acres in extent. It had been used as a caravan site ever since the year 1927. There had been several caravans on it at various times but never more than 24 caravans at any one time. These were permanent residential caravans. The caravan-dwellers burned their refuse. The sewage went into cesspools. The waste water was drained off into soakaways. Mrs Edy had not applied to the Planning Authority for planning permission. She did not need it: for the simple reason that her use of the field was of such long standing, going back as it did long before the 1947 Act; and she had never made any material change in its use.

2

But under the Caravans Act, 1960, Mrs Edy had to apply to the Local Authority (the Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council) for a site licence. She did so on 30th October, 1960 (a day late but the Local Authority allowed her this extra day). On the application form she was asked this question: "State maximum number of caravans proposed to be stationed on this site at any one time for the purposes of human habitation". She answered "24". The Local Authority duly transmitted the application to the Planning Authority (the Hertfordshire County Council). The Planning Authority might have given her express planning permission, or they might have given notice to her to discontinue using it as a caravan site, but they did neither. They did nothing. The result was that under Section 17(3) of the 1960 Act the planning permission was "deemed" to have been, granted for use of the field as a caravan site without any condition or limitation. Thereupon Mrs Edy became entitled to a site licence under Section 3(3) and (4) of the 1960 Act. On 24th March, 1961, the Local Authority issued to Mrs Edy a site licence for residential caravans but they imposed a condition that the maximum number of caravans allowed on the site at any one time should be 24. Mrs Edy took no objection to that condition.

3

On 25th June, 1962, Mrs Edy let the field to a Company which specialises in developing caravan sites. It is called Esdell Caravan Parks Limited. The lease was for 21 years. The Caravan Company improved the site a good deal and connected the caravans up to all main services. They duly observed the condition that there should be no more than 24 caravans on the site. Two years later on 29th July, 1964, the Local Authority, for administrative convenience, cancelled the site licence and issued a fresh licence in favour of the Caravan Company. It authorised them to use the land as a caravan site, subject to various conditions, and in particular to this express condition: "The maximum number of caravans allowed on the site at any one time is 24".

4

The Caravan Company challenged this condition. They appealed to the Magistrates under Section 7 of the 1960 Act, asking them to say that the erudition was unduly burdensome. The Caravan Company said that they had an existing right, by reason of long usage, to use the whole field as a caravan site. Their predecessor had a right, they said, without obtaining planning permission, to increase the number of caravans from 24 to 78: and it was not open to the authorities to restrict the number to 24 without paying compensation.

5

Before embarking on the discussion, I would like to say that I doubt very much whether the occupier could increase from 24 to 78 without permission. An increase in intensity of that order may well amount to a material change of use - see the recent case of James v. Minister of Housing. But I will assume for present purposes that it would not be a material change of use; and that, before the 1960 Act, there was an existing right to increase from 24 to 78 without obtaining planning permission.

6

The Magistrates rejected the argument of the Caravan Company. They held that the condition was good and gave their reasons in a case stated. They recognised that the field could accommodate 78 good class modern caravans connected to all main services and there was no public health reason against it. Butthey thought that an Increase from 24 to 78 was undesirable for reasons which they set out in paragraphs 3(k) to (q) of the case stated. These may be summarised as follows:-

7

The field is in a rural area (in the Green Belt). A great influx of caravan-dwellers would upset the social balance of the district; the nearest school (two miles away) would become grossly overcrowded; the shops were two miles distant and public transport limited; and the increased traffic would bring hazards on the roads and damage to the amenities. The Caravan Company contended that the Magistrates were not entitled to have regard to these considerations and appealed to the Divisional Court.

8

The legal problem arises from the fact that the Caravan Company had "deemed" planning permission to use the field as a caravan site without any conditions at all; and, at the same time, they had a site licence which contained an express condition limiting the number of caravans to 24. Which is to prevail? The planning permission or the site licence?

9

There are two Authorities which have power to control caravan sites. On the one hand there is the Planning Authority (which is usually the County Council, or its delegate, the District Council). Its powers are derived from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 (now consolidated in the 1962 Act). On the other hand, there is the Site Authority (which is usually a District Council in its own right, and not as a delegate). Its powers are derived from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, Part I.

10

Both of these Authorities have power to impose conditions. When the Planning Authority grant planning permission, they may impose "such conditions as they think fit" - see Section 14 of the 1947 Act. When the Site Authority issue a site licence, they can issue it "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 people dwelling therein in caravans, or of any other class of persons, or of the publicat large" - see Section 5(1) of the 1960 Act. In addition to this general provision, the 1960 Act condescends to give detailed particulars of the type of condition which the Site Authority may impose. In particular, they may impose conditions "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".

11

It is obvious that when you have two Authorities, each of whom has power to impose conditions on the development of a site, you may get a conflict between them or between the conditions which they impose. The root question in this case is: How is this conflict to be resolved? I approach the question by remembering that the Planning Authority derive their powers under a General Act which does not deal with, caravans at all: whereas the Sits Authority derive their powers under a Special Act which deals specifically with caravans and the particular conditions which the Site Authority can impose. This seems to me to lead inexorably to the conclusion that the Planning Authority ought to direct their attention to matters in outline, leaving the Site Authority to deal with all matters of detail. Thus the Planning Authority should ask themselves this broad question:- Ought this field to be used as a caravan site at all? If "Yes", they should grant planning permission for it, without going into details as to number of caravans and the like, or imposing any conditions in that regard. Once planning permission is given, or deemed to be given, the Site Authority should deal with the details. They should say how many caravans should be permitted; whether they should be residential caravans or holiday caravans; or the like. They can impose whatever conditions they think necessary or desirable in relation to the use of the site as a caravan site, so long as they are not unduly burdensome. But they must not impose conditions which have no relation to the use of the site, see Mixnam's case, 1964, 2 Weekly Law Reports, p. 1210, and the Pyx Granite case, 1958, 1 Queen's Bench at p. 172.

12

This simple division of responsibility has been overlooked in the past. Some of the Planning Authorities have gone into detail too much. They have imposed conditions limiting the number of caravans, instead of leaving it to the Site Authority. That happened both in Crittenden's case, 1964, 1 Queen's Bench, p. 144, and in Hartnell's case, 1965, 2 Weekly Law Reports, p. 474. In each of those cases the owner had, by reason of long user, an existing right to use a field as a caravan site. The Planning Authority granted express provision to use it as a caravan site, but imposed a condition limiting the number on it. Such a condition was assumed in Crittenden's case to be lawful. But the House of Lords held in Hartnell's case that it was unlawful. The Planning Authority have no power (in an existing rights case), when granting permission, to impose a condition limiting the number of caravans; because that would be taking away the owner's existing rights without compensation. If the Plaimlng Authority desire to limit the number of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Babbage v North Norfolk District Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Mario Di Ciacca V. The Scottish Ministers
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 2 April 2003
    ...one statutory regime may be regarded as restricting the scope of the other (see e.g. Esdell Caravan Parks Ltd v Hemel Hempstead R.D.C [1966] 1 Q.B. 895 at pages 922 to 923 per Lord Denning M.R.) That is however a conclusion which has rarely been reached. More commonly, the two sets of power......
  • Wyre Forest District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 22 February 1990
    ...Act of 1960 and is noted in such cases as Reg. v. Kent Justices, Ex parte Crittenden [1964] 1 Q.B. 144 and Esdell Caravan Parks Ltd. v. Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council [1966] 1 Q.B. 895. They also rely on the absence from the planning permission granted on 5 December 1961 of any re......
  • R (Patricia Shave) v Maidstone Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 July 2020
    ...negated either of those two points. 53 Mr. Atkinson referred to Esdell Caravan Parks Limited v Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council [1966] 1 QB 895 for the analysis by the Court of Appeal of the overlapping nature of the controls available under planning legislation and the 1960 Act. But......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT