Tallington Lakes Limited v South Kesteven District Council

For site-licensing purposes, an “occupier” must occupy land by virtue of a legal or equitable estate or interest. A licensee or manager under a management agreement is not the occupier merely because it operates the caravan site.

A site is excluded from the definition of a relevant protected site only where the relevant licence or planning permission covers the site and is expressed to permit holiday use only, or imposes restrictions preventing caravans from being stationed for human habitation at some times of the year across the whole site. Mixed-use permissions do not qualify for the exclusion. A licence condition referring to holiday caravans, without restricting use to holidays, is insufficient.

Tallington Lakes Limited, the freehold owner of a leisure park and static caravan site, appealed against two decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The FTT had determined that Tallington Lakes Limited, rather than the company managing the site, was the correct site-licence holder. It later ordered the appellant to pay outstanding annual licence fees without a hearing.

The appeal raised three issues: the identity of the correct licence holder; whether the FTT could decide the fee application without a hearing when the appellant had objected; and whether the site was a relevant protected site under section 5A(5) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

1. Correct licence holder. The appeal failed on this ground. Under section 1(3) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, “occupier” means the person entitled to possession by virtue of a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land. The appellant was the freeholder and therefore the occupier and correct licence holder. Section 10 concerns transfer of an existing licence when the occupier changes; it does not extend the definition of occupier to a site manager or licensee.
2. Decision without a hearing. Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 required a hearing unless each party consented to a decision without one. The appellant’s letter clearly objected within the relevant period. The FTT therefore erred in deciding the fee application on the papers, and its December 2021 decision was set aside.
3. Relevant protected site. The exclusion in section 5A(5) applied only if the licence or the relevant planning permission or permissions covered the site and either were expressed to be for holiday use only or prevented caravans from being stationed for human habitation at some times of the year across the whole site. The 2003 licence’s reference to static holiday caravans limited their number but did not restrict the site to holiday use. The 2016 licence and its conditions could not change the nature of the site, and private sales agreements were irrelevant to the statutory definition.
4. Several planning permissions imposed seasonal restrictions, while others were unrestricted. The permissions therefore allowed mixed use across the licensed land. Tallington Lakes was consequently a relevant protected site under section 5A(5), and the fees were payable. The Upper Tribunal substituted its own decision and ordered payment within 28 days.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): In March 2021, determined that Tallington Lakes Limited was the correct site-licence holder. In December 2021, ordered payment of outstanding licence fees after determining the application without a hearing.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Set aside the December 2021 decision because the FTT should have held a hearing, but substituted its own decision that the fees were payable. The appeal failed on the licence-holder and relevant-protected-site grounds.