Percy Lloyd Edmunds (Plaintiff Appellant) Cardiganshire County Council (Defendant Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SACHS,LORD JUSTICE KARMINSKI |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0514-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 May 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0514-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
The Court of Appeal
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Sachs and
Lord Justice Karminski.
Appeal of plaintiff from judgment of Mr. Justice Roskill dated July 11th, 1968.
Mr. A.P. FLETCHER (instructed by Messrs. Gillhams, Agents for Mr. Leslie J. Slade, Newent, Gloucestershire) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff Appellant.
Mr. A.E. HOLDSWORTH, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Sharpe Pritchard & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Defendant Respondent.
This case concerns a caravan site near the seaside village of Borth, which is 7 miles north of Aberystwith. There is a field near Brynrodyn Farm which is numbered on the Ordinance Survey 100. It is something over 5 acres. It has for many years had up to 6 caravans on it during the Summer. They were placed at random. About 1960 the then owner got planning approval for 15 caravans on a small part of the field. Then in 1962 the field was bought by Mr. Edmunds. Mr. Edmunds wanted to expand. He sought to put 250 caravans on this field and two neighbouring fields. His application was refused by the local authority. There was an Inquiry by an Inspector. He recommended that "the appeal be allowed only in so far as it related to number of caravans for which user right exists. On the 9th December, 1963, the Minister gave his decision and the reasons for his decision, as he is required to do. It was in these terms:-
"The Inspector finds that tents were sited in random positions on O.S. enclosures Nos. 99A and 154 and that tents and up to 6 caravans were similarly situated on O.S. enclosure No. 100 periodically since and prior to 1939. Planning consent exists for the stationing of 15 caravans on part of O.S. enclosure No. 100, and the Inspector finds that in respect of this land (O.S. enclosure No. 100), there is also an existing use right for up to 6 caravans. He observes that the unclassified road which provides access to the site is narrow and he considers that in the interests of public safety the number of caravans should be kept to a minimum. He recommends that the appeal be allowed only so far as it relates to the number of caravans fox which user-right exists.
The Minister accepts the findings and recommendation of his Inspector. ……… Having regard to his Inspector's findings in respect of the land, and since formal grant of planning permission is necessary before a site licence can be issued under Section 3 of the CaravanSites and Control of Development Act, 1960, he grants permission for the use of this land (O.S. enclosure No. 100 as shown in the application for planning permission dated 20th July, 1962, and plan submitted therewith to the Cardiganshire County Council) as a caravan site within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development 1960 between 1st April and 30th September in each year, subject to the following conditions:-
(1) on or before 30th September in each year the caravans shall be removed from the site;
(2) the normal use of the land between 30th September and 1st April shall not be affected by this permission."
After receiving that letter, several things happened of which we have been told, but the Judge was not. Mr. Edmunds applied for a site licence. The Rural District Council of Aberystwith, who are the site-licensing authority, granted him a licence for 21 caravans. They regarded the Minister's decision as limiting him to 21 (the 15, plus 6). Mr. Edmunds was not satisfied. He appealed to the Magistrates. The Magistrates allowed his appeal. They thought that the Minister had put no limit on the number of caravans. They regarded the Minister's decision as a general permission. The Magistrates allowed the full number permitted by the Model Standards for Caravan Sites, which would come to 135. After the decision of the Magistrates, Mr. Edmunds put a large number of caravans on the site. He put 90 caravans there. Some of them were of a permanent nature. They ought to have been removed by 30th September. But Mr. Edmunds did not want to remove them. This gave rise to controversy. In the course of it, the planning authority said that the Minister's decision limited him to 21.
Eventually, in order to clear up the legal position, Mr. Edmunds and his advisers made an application to the High Court by originating summons in order to determine the true construction of the Minister's letter. The Planning Authority contended thatthe Minister granted planning permission for caravans limited in number to 21. Mr. Edmunds contended that it was a general permission, subject only to the two express conditions, leaving the number to be limited by the site licence.
The Judge decided in favour of the Planning Authority. He held that the number was limited to 21. But we have much more Information than the Judge had.
It is important to distinguish between the decision of the Minister, properly so called, and the reasons for his decision. I think his decision is contained in the words "he grants permission .…." down to the end of Condition (2). That decision is clear and unambiguous. It is a grant of permission for the use of the defined land, namely, field O.S. 100. It contains no limitation as to numbers at all. If the Minister had desired to put a limitation on the numbers, he should have done it by express condition. He did not do so. I have no doubt the reason was because he left the numbers to be decided by the Site Licensing Authority, namely, the Rural District Council. They knew the local conditions and could deal with numbers. That is the accepted policy in these cases. The Planning Authority give general permission for caravans. The site licensing authority prescribe the numbers. That was the policy laid down by the Minister himself in Circular No. 42 of 1960 in paragraph 19. The same policy was approved by this Court in Esdell Caravan Parks Ltd. v. Kernel Hempstead Rural District Council (1966 1 Q.B.) at pages 922 and 923. Looking at this decision, therefore, I think there was a general permission for caravans on the field (subject only to the two express conditions), but the number was left to the Site Licensing Authority.
Mr. Holdsworth argues that we ought to look at the reasons for the decision. I think that would be permissible if the decision were ambiguous, 'out this is not ambiguous. It is clear. But, even looking at the reasons, I do not see anything in them to cut down the permission. The whole letter is consistentwhen it is realised...
To continue reading
Request your trial