Swalecliffe Chalet Owners' Association, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

When construing an express planning permission granted under the statutory regime for existing caravan sites, the permission must be read with any application and plan incorporated into it. The court should prefer a lawful construction where the documents permit one, but must not use extrinsic evidence to cut down the permission’s terms. A reference to continuation of an existing seasonal caravan camp does not necessarily authorise that use throughout the whole stated acreage. Where the incorporated application and plan distinguish land occupied by caravans from land occupied by chalets, and chalets do not fall within the statutory definition of a caravan, the permission may be confined to the caravan area.

The claimant association applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision. The inspector had allowed an appeal under section 195 and granted a lawful development certificate for the siting of static holiday caravans on the chalet field at Seaview Holiday Village.

The relevant permission, granted in 1961, authorised development as a continuation of use as a seasonal caravan camp and incorporated the original site-licence application and plan. Those documents identified separate brown land for caravans and yellow land for chalets. The central issue was whether the permission authorised caravans on the whole 29.25-acre site or only on the land comprising the existing caravan site.

1. The claim succeeded. The inspector’s decision and the lawful development certificate were quashed. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, summarily assessed at £12,000 including VAT.
2. An express planning permission must be construed according to its terms. Where the permission incorporates the application and accompanying plan, those documents must be read together. It is permissible, and in this case essential, to have regard to the application in construing the permission: R v Ashford Borough Council ex parte Shepway District Council [1999] PLCR 12.
3. The court presumed, absent evidence or indication to the contrary, that the local planning authority acted lawfully under section 17 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The permission was therefore to be construed as authorising the continuation of the existing caravan-site use, rather than as granting a new change of use over land which could not have been an existing site.
4. Extrinsic evidence could not be used to determine the extent of the existing site and then cut down the permission. The extent was ascertainable from the application form and plan, read against the statutory framework. A lawful and sensible construction was preferred where available.
5. The statutory concept of a caravan site could include land used in conjunction with land on which caravans were stationed, and the extent of an existing site was ordinarily a question of fact and degree, following Williams-Denton v Watford Rural District Council [1963] 15 P&CR 11 and R v Axbridge Rural District Council ex parte Wormald [1964] 1 WLR 442. On these documents, however, the brown land was identified as the caravan area and the yellow land as the chalet area. The chalets were not caravans within section 29 of the 1960 Act and could not form part of the existing caravan site.
6. The reference to 29.25 acres in the permission could not be read in isolation. Because the permission authorised continuation of an existing use and expressly incorporated the application and plan, it authorised seasonal caravan-camp use on the brown land, but not on the yellow chalet land.
7. Permission to appeal was refused because the judge considered that there was no real prospect of success.

The judgment describes an appeal to a Secretary of State inspector under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector allowed the appeal and granted a lawful development certificate. The Administrative Court quashed both the inspector’s decision and the certificate.