Chelmsford City Council v Leisure Parks Real Estate (Holdings) Ltd & Ors

Planning permission must ordinarily be interpreted from the permission itself and documents expressly incorporated into it. A planning application is not incorporated merely because the permission records that it was considered. Extrinsic material may be used where the permission is ambiguous, but only to resolve that ambiguity. Different parts of an incorporated plan may be assessed separately where one part is clear and another is ambiguous. Permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 requires works to be required by the conditions of a site licence; it does not authorise preparatory works for caravans lacking planning permission. A final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may be granted where unlawful works are substantial and clarity is needed to prevent further breaches and occupation.

The local planning authority sought a final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning works and caravans placed on disputed land at a caravan park. The defendants argued that the land fell within a 2013 planning permission, or alternatively benefited from permitted development rights arising from a caravan site licence. They also argued that the court should decline injunctive relief.

The court determined the scope of the planning permission, whether the works were authorised under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, and whether a final injunction was appropriate.

1. Planning permission. The 2013 planning permission incorporated the site plan, but not the whole planning application. The wording that the Council had given consideration to the application did not signpost incorporation. The boundary therefore had to be interpreted from the permission and incorporated site plan, subject to any recognised ambiguity.
2. Ambiguity. Boundary Line A was clear and unambiguous. It plainly excluded the disputed land. Boundary Line B was ambiguous because the plan did not reveal whether the spur was intentional or, if so, where it should run. The ambiguity in Boundary Line B did not make Boundary Line A ambiguous. The two sections could sensibly be assessed separately, and no finding was required concerning Boundary Line B.
3. Permitted development. Class B of Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 covers development required by the conditions of a site licence. It did not authorise foundations, utility works, roads or hardstanding intended to facilitate caravans which lacked underlying planning permission. The subsequent caravan site licence could not enlarge or clarify the earlier planning permission.
4. Relief. A final injunction was just and proportionate under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The works were substantial and unlawful, had continued after warning, and were situated in the Green Belt. An injunction would provide clarity and prevent residential occupation and further breaches. There was no corresponding hardship involving existing residents or Article 8 rights.
5. The injunction was limited to land directly adjacent to Boundary Line A. It prohibited all occupation, excluded an additional strip of land for which no evidence justified permanent relief, and applied to the second defendant because it remained named on the site licence.