Adams v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Governmen & Anor

A certificate of lawful existing use does not authorise development in breach of conditions attached to an implemented planning permission unless the breach is itself described in the certificate. Section 193(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 preserves such conditions. The certificate must be interpreted as a whole, including its reasons and explanatory notes. Its prescribed form does not require limitations to appear only in the First Schedule. Where the certificate expressly refers to planning permissions and conditions, those documents may be considered as an aid to interpretation. The court must identify the natural and ordinary meaning of the certificate in its legal and factual context. A certificate for a touring caravan site therefore does not, without more, authorise use of caravans as permanent residences where an extant permission restricts use to holidays and requires seasonal removal.

The claimant challenged, under section 288(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an Inspector’s dismissal of his appeal under section 195. The appeal concerned a proposed certificate of lawfulness for the use of Fenside Caravan Park as a touring caravan site, including the siting of caravans used as a person’s sole or main residence.

The site had permissions restricting caravan use to holidays and prohibiting occupation during winter months. A 2016 certificate of lawful existing use described the use as a touring caravan site and referred in its reasons to restrictions in the planning permissions. The central issue was whether that certificate authorised residential occupation free from those conditions.

1. Claim dismissed. The Inspector’s decision disclosed no error of law.
2. Section 193(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 prevents a certificate under section 191 or 192 from affecting a failure to comply with a planning condition unless that failure is described in the certificate. The provision is not confined to certificates expressly issued on the basis of an extant permission or to certificates identifying a particular breach. It also applies where a lawful development certificate confirms development implemented under a permission subject to conditions.
3. The 2004 permission was likely implemented and remained extant. Its conditions restricted the caravans to holiday use and prohibited their stationing on the site during winter. Those conditions were incompatible with use as a person’s sole or main residence.
4. The certificate had to be read as a whole. The reasons and notes were part of the certificate, not unauthorised informatives. They explained that the use had been implemented and reminded the reader of restrictions on the number and duration of caravans. Article 39 and Schedule 8 of the Town and Country (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015 did not require all such parameters to appear in the First Schedule.
5. The Inspector was entitled to consider the planning permissions as extrinsic material because they were expressly referred to in the certificate. The interpretative approach in Lambeth LBC v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] UKSC 33 and Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74 supported reading the document in context and applying its natural and ordinary meaning.
6. The certificate confirmed only the lawfulness of the approved touring-caravan-site use. It did not certify a use in breach of condition. The claim under section 288 was dismissed.

The judgment was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Administrative Court). The claim under section 288(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenged an Inspector’s decision dismissing the claimant’s section 195 appeal.