Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (Respondent (Plaintiff) v Lucy Cartwright and Another (Appellants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PURCHAS,LORD JUSTICE MUSTILL,LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1991 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1991] EWCA Civ J0524-13 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 91/0637 |
| Date | 24 May 1991 |
[1991] EWCA Civ J0524-13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLENNERHASSETT
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Purchas
Lord Justice Mustill
and
Lord Justice Butler-Sloss
91/0637
and
THE APPELLANT (Defendant) appeared in person.
MR. ROBIN CAMPBELL (instructed by Messrs Bowcock Pursail) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
The court has before it two separate
appeals by a husband and wife, namely Lucy Cartwright and Ronald Cartwright, challenging declarations made on 17th April 1989 by His Honour Judge Blennerhassett (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) at Stafford. Lucy Cartwright has at all material times appeared in person. Until shortly before the date for the hearing of the appeal, Ronald Cartwright had the benefit of solicitor and counsel who had represented him at the trial. He has now served notice that he proposes to present his appeal in person. When both appeals were on called before the court only Lucy Cartwright appeared, but speaking with the ostensible authority of her husband, she told the court that he was indisposed and unable to present his appeal, but that he was content that his appeal should abide the result of his wife's appeal. Mr. Campbell who appeared in both appeals to the respondents, the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council ("Moorlands") indicated that he had no objection to this course being taken provided that there was not at any time during the hearing of Lucy Cartwright's appeal some point of conflict between the two appeals. This course was accordingly adopted and no point of conflict has arisen during the argument. Accordingly I propose to deliver this judgment in the name of Lucy Cartwright and to refer to her as "the appellant". Ronald Cartwright's appeal will depend on this result.
Before embarking upon the substance of the appeal I would wish at the outset of this judgment to acknowledge the patient and skillful manner in which the appellant conducted her appeal which, as will be revealed, involved a number of unusual and complex issues. Only rarely were the appellant's submissions without some substance and these points were readily explicable by a lack of formal legal qualification. Mr. Campbell accepted the task of drawing the court's attention to any points in the appellant's favour which she had overlooked, and was unable to indicate any point that had been omitted. For my part I am wholly satisfied that every argument that could be advanced in support of either of the appeals has been advanced.
Moorlands brought the action by way of writ seeking declarations under the powers granted by section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. This enables a local authority for any particular area where it considers it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of that area to prosecute in any legal proceedings and in the case of civil proceedings, to institute them in its own name. This is what Moorlands have done in this case. By the endorsement upon their writ they sought declarations, nine in number, affecting what, for the purposes of general introduction, can be described as "The Planning Status" of a substantial property consisting of a listed building of historic importance set in a country estate and known as Sharpcliffe Hall, Ipstones, Staffordshire ("the estate"). This estate fell within the area of Moorlands. It had formerly been part of the area administered by the Cheadle Rural District Council ("Cheadle"). In earlier days the estate extended to more than a thousand acres but it was later split into smaller parcels. The judge made only four declarations, each of which was related to the estate and the main building ("the Hall") in the context of their planning status either for the use as a caravan site in part of the ground or in relation to the use of the Hall as an hotel.
History.
It is necessary before considering the specific issues raised in the appeals to describe in outline the history of this property and the actions taken in respect of it both by the appellants, one E W Jackson ("Jackson"), their predecessor in title, the High Court, Cheadle, and Moorlands. At all material times since she purchased the property in 1958 Lucy Cartwright owned the estate. She and her husband were occupiers from the date upon which it was bought. During the 1939–45 War the Hall was used as a red cross hospital. On 3rd June 1946 it was converted and was occupied as a youth hostel. This use ceased in 1954. During the ensuing two years the estate became derelict and disused. By 1956 Sharpcliffe Hall was owned by Jackson. On 23rd February 1956 Jackson made an application to Cheadle for permission to develop the estate for use as a caravan site. This was dated 11th May 1956. This, after further negotiations and the submission of plans, resulted in the approval subject to conditions to the development of part of the estate as a caravan site. I shall refer to this approval as "the 1956 permission". The true effect of the 1956 permission has been the subject of dispute between the Cartwrights and Cheadle and consequently their successors Moorlands.
It is convenient to divert at this stage in order to make reference to another dispute between the Cartwrights, Cheadle and Moorlands relating to the Hall itself. This was an assertion by the Cartwrights that there was an existing permission to use the Hall for the purpose of an hotel. The Cartwrights contended that on the appointed day for the purpose of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 ("the 1947 Act"), namely the first day of July 1948, the Hall was occupied as an hostel. Under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1948 an hostel and an hotel find themselves in the same use class namely Class XIV. The contention which was pursued on the appeal by Mrs. Cartwright was that this had the effect of endowing the Hall permanently with planning permission for use as an hotel. Mrs. Cartwright relied upon section 33(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act"). This contention, like the "caravan" issue has at all times been strenuously contested by Cheadle and in their turn by Moorlands. These two disputes have been a running sore between the appellants, Cheadle and Moorlands throughout the long history of litigation between the parties to which it will unhappily be necessary to refer in some detail later in this judgment.
On 16th May 1956, i.e. within days of the granting to Jackson of the 1956 permission enquiries about planning permission for a caravan site at Sharpcliffe Hall were already being received from solicitors acting for an undisclosed principal. Nothing came of this and it was not the until August of the following year that Messrs Walton and Hipkiss acting for the Cartwrights approached Cheadle enquiring about the planning permission for a caravan site. In a letter dated 12th August 1957 addressed to "L Cartwright, Esq." whom in the absence of any indication to the contrary I assume was Mrs. Cartwright, Mr. Walton writes in these terms:-
"Referring to our discuss at Sharpcliffe Hall yesterday we have today been in telephone communication with Cheadle Rural District Council in connection with the position with the caravans. They state that the official site was 20 caravans in the walled garden and 10 on the hard court, but they thought that permission would be granted for caravans instead of in the walled garden adjacent thereto in the little wood lower down on the same side.
The general suggestion is that when a purchaser has finally agreed to take the Hall and in fact is in possession that he should then put and amendment in writing to the planning department of the Council to alter the site from the wall garden to the aforesaid wood".
After the passing of the Caravan Sites and Control and Development Act 1960 ("the 1960 Act") Mrs. Cartwright wrote to Cheadle on 25th October 1960 indicating that she was intending to make a formal application for a site licence under the 1960 Act for a caravan site at Sharpcliffe Hall. After further passage of time, on 2nd November 1962 Cheadle wrote pointing out that there was a planning permission to establish a caravan site in accordance with the conditions laid down on the permission and emphasised "the detailed plans indicating the development should be submitted and approved before a site licence is issued". The detailed plans to which the letter refers were clearly those required by condition 1 of the 1956 permission to which reference in more detail is made later in this judgment.
Mr. Cartwright wrote a letter dated 1st November 1962 for a licence for a site described as "two and a half acres approximately (more available if necessary)". The application stated that the maximum number of caravans proposed to be stationed on the site at any one time was 30. Notwithstanding that the printed form provided that "a layout plan of the site a scale of not less than 1/500 should be attached showing a whole catalogue of details, the only plan which appears to have been forwarded with this application was one at the very much smaller scale of 1/2500 indicating the general areas in which the licence was sought. This was later substituted by an amended plan on the same scale showing a different area of the estate. This one was consistent with the area of an original plan submitted with the application made by Jackson in 1956. Mr. Cartwright's application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Kemball v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (First Defendant)
...it is permissible to look at extrinsic material, including the application, to resolve that ambiguity: see Staffordshire Moorlands District Council v. Cartwright (1992) J.P.L. 138 at 139; Slough Estates Limited v. Slough Borough Council(ante);Creighton Estates Limited v. London County Counc......
-
University of Leicester v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...it is permissible to look at extrinsic material, including the application, to resolve that ambiguity: see Staffordshire Moorlands District Council v Cartwright (1992) JPL 138 at 139; Slough Estates Limited v Slough Borough Council (ante); Creighton Estates Limited v London County Council, ......