Barton Park Estates Ltd v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

A planning permission must be construed as a whole. Its description identifies the permitted use, but does not impose a numerical or substantive limitation unless the limitation is imposed by condition or is otherwise legally effective. Conditions may identify uses which are forbidden.

Whether a proposed use is within the scope of an existing permission depends on comparing the permission with the proposed use. A material change of use is established where the extent and nature of the change alters the character, or definable character, of the existing use. The fact that both uses may generally be described as a caravan site does not prevent a material change of use.

The claimant owned a caravan park in Dartmoor National Park. A 1987 planning permission described an enhancement scheme involving residential vans, holiday chalets, static vans and touring units. Its conditions imposed seasonal restrictions on chalets, static holiday caravans and touring pitches, and limited touring units to three weeks’ occupation annually.

The claimant sought a certificate of lawful use or development for stationing up to 80 caravans for human habitation. The local planning authority refused the application. An inspector dismissed the claimant’s appeal under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claimant challenged that decision under section 288 on three grounds concerning construction of the permission, holiday use and material change of use.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector had not erred in law.
2. The construction of a planning permission is a matter of law. The permission must generally be construed within its four corners, including its conditions and express reasons. The question is what a reasonable reader would understand to be permitted, having regard to ordinary meaning, purpose, relevant conditions and common sense.
3. The description of the 1987 permission did not impose a numerical limitation on the various units because no such limitation appeared as a condition. Nevertheless, the permission had to be read as a whole. Conditions (e) and (f), together with their reasons, showed that the permission contemplated both permanent residential accommodation and holiday accommodation. The seasonal and three-week restrictions were legally significant limitations on use.
4. The proposed use, described as stationing up to 80 caravans for human habitation, could encompass a scenario in which all caravans were used for permanent residential occupation. The inspector correctly understood that holiday accommodation could continue in the extreme scenario considered, and that the proposal was not necessarily limited to replacing the existing chalets.
5. For material change of use, the comparison is between the present use and the proposed use. The issue is whether the extent and nature of the change alters the character or definable character of the existing use. The inspector was entitled to consider on-site effects and relevant off-site effects. The proposed use would create year-round domestic presence, domesticise open grassed areas, alter movements and parking, and make the site more visible from the road. It was therefore more than a caravan site on a larger scale and amounted to a material change of use.

Any consequential matters not agreed were left for written submissions, and the parties were invited to submit a draft order within 14 days.

The judgment does not state a prior judicial appeal. It records an appeal to an inspector under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, followed by this statutory challenge under section 288.