Shave, R (On the Application Of) v Maidstone Borough Council

A planning permission may authorise a change of use while also controlling the design and appearance of structures or objects whose siting and retention the permission permits. A planning authority cannot assume that design control may be left to a separate licensing regime, particularly where that regime restricts control over construction materials or permits conditions only within narrower limits.

Officer reports are read fairly and with reasonable benevolence. The court intervenes only where a report materially misleads the decision-maker on a matter which could have affected the outcome. A holiday occupancy condition need not define the duration of a holiday if it clearly prevents occupation as a sole or main residence and provides a workable enforcement mechanism.

Maidstone Borough Council granted planning permission for the change of use of land to station 18 holiday caravans. The claimant, whose home was nearby, challenged the permission on several grounds, including alleged errors in the treatment of environmental impact assessment, sustainability, design, the holiday occupancy condition and permitted development rights.

The central issue was whether the council had unlawfully advised its Planning Committee that, because the application concerned a change of use and caravans, it could not require further design information or exercise planning control over the appearance of the proposed holiday lodges.

1. Outcome. The claim was allowed on one ground. The planning permission dated 13 December 2019 was quashed. The remaining grounds were rejected.
2. Officer reports. Applying the principles summarised in R (Mansell) v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council [2019] PTSR 1452, the reports had to be read fairly, without undue rigour and with reasonable benevolence. The question was whether the reports materially misled the Committee on a matter which could have affected its decision. The reports adequately addressed sustainability. The references to the 28-day permitted development right for camping were not misleading because they did not suggest that the right applied to caravan use.
3. Design control. Policies requiring good quality design could apply to features installed on land pursuant to a change-of-use permission, even if those features were not buildings. The planning application did not prevent the council from requiring information about the design, layout, scale or materials of the holiday lodges, or from imposing conditions controlling those matters.
4. The licensing regime under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 did not justify leaving design entirely to the site-licence process. Section 5(2) prevented a site-licence condition controlling construction materials, while section 5(1) limited the conditions which could be imposed. The council therefore erred in law by advising the Committee that planning control could not extend beyond the statutory caravan dimensions.
5. Holiday occupancy. Condition 3 was lawful. It clearly prohibited occupation of any lodge as the occupier’s sole or main residence, and the register of occupiers’ main addresses and duration of stay provided a suitable means of checking compliance. Applying Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578, the condition was not so unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority could have imposed it.
6. Relief and costs. It was highly likely that the Committee might have required further design information or imposed a design condition had it been properly advised. A quashing order was therefore not withheld under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant recovered one half of her assessed costs, namely £18,669.