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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Administrative Court’s refusal of a challenge to an inspector’s decision to refuse a certificate of lawful use under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court reaffirmed that a planning permission must be construed as a whole, including the grant, the conditions and the stated reasons, and that the description of development in the grant can impose functional limits on the permission. The inspector correctly interpreted the 1987 and 2013 permissions as permitting a specific mix of residential and holiday caravan accommodation and as preventing year‑round occupation of most units by condition. The inspector was also entitled to conclude, as a matter of fact and planning judgment, that the proposal to station up to 80 caravans for human habitation would constitute a material change in the character of the site’s use and thus required planning permission.

Background and parties: The appellant, Barton Park Estates Ltd., applied under section 192 for a certificate of lawful use or development for the stationing of up to 80 caravans "for the purposes of human habitation" on land within Dartmoor National Park. The application was refused by the Dartmoor National Park Authority on 23 November 2018; an inspector dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 29 June 2020. The appellant challenged the inspector’s decision in the Administrative Court (His Honour Judge Jarman Q.C., [2021] EWHC 1200 (Admin)) and then appealed to the Court of Appeal with permission on four grounds.

Nature of the application and issues: The application sought a certificate that the proposed use would be lawful if begun at the date of application (s192). The principal issues were (1) whether the proposed use fell within the scope of the existing 1987 planning permission as varied by the 2013 permission, and (2) if not, whether the proposed use would amount to a material change of use requiring planning permission.

Procedural history: The matter proceeded from local authority refusal to an inspector’s appeal decision (29 June 2020), then to judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the Administrative Court ([2021] EWHC 1200 (Admin)), and finally to this Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 833).

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• Interpretation of permissions: The court emphasised the established principle that planning permissions are to be read as a whole and that a reasonable reader must construe the grant together with conditions and reasons (citing Trump International Golf Club and other authorities). The 1987 permission expressly identified a specific mix of accommodation (9 residential vans, 16 holiday chalets, 18 static vans and 30 touring units). Conditions (e) and (f) limited year‑round occupation of most elements of the permitted mix, and their reason demonstrated their functional purpose to protect park character and retain touring caravan availability. The court held that this description and the conditions limited the real scope of the 1987 permission: it did not permit wholesale conversion to permanent residential occupation beyond the specific mix.
• I’m Your Man line: The court explained that the I’m Your Man authorities do not justify disregarding the words of a grant and that limitations may be inherent in the description of development; the cases must not be over‑applied.
• Material change of use: Even if the generic use (a caravan site) would remain, intensification and a shift in the balance to year‑round residential occupation could change the character of the use. The inspector found, on facts not challenged, that unrestricted occupation of up to 80 caravans would bring substantial and fundamental changes (lighting, noise, movement patterns, visual domestication) and therefore constitute a material change of use. This evaluative judgment was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Relief sought: A certificate of lawful use under section 192 was sought; the court affirmed refusal because the proposed use exceeded the scope of the existing permissions and would constitute a material change of use.

Wider context: The court noted the established scarcity and careful application of the I’m Your Man principle and the need to ascertain the true scope of a grant before deciding whether a material change of use has occurred.

Appeal dismissed. The court held that the inspector correctly interpreted the 1987 and 2013 planning permissions as authorising a particular mix of holiday and limited residential caravan accommodation, that the description and conditions limited the real scope of the permission, and that the proposed stationing of up to 80 caravans for year‑round habitation would, as a matter of fact and planning judgment, produce a substantial and fundamental change in the character of the site and therefore amount to a material change of use requiring planning permission.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Administrative Court (planning court). The Administrative Court decision was His Honour Judge Jarman Q.C., reported at [2021] EWHC 1200 (Admin). The inspector’s decision dismissing the section 195 appeal was dated 29 June 2020; the original section 192 application was refused by the Dartmoor National Park Authority on 23 November 2018. The Court of Appeal’s judgment is reported at [2022] EWCA Civ 833.