Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council

A document issued after a proposed transfer of a site licence must be construed according to its terms and legal effect, not the issuing authority’s intention or administrative guidance. A document expressly granting a licence under section 3 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, with a new reference number and materially different content, is a new licence rather than a transferred licence. An appeal against its conditions therefore lies under section 7. Procedural errors in identifying the statutory route do not ordinarily justify striking out where the tribunal has jurisdiction and the substance of the relevant statutory precondition has been satisfied. Fair and flexible case management may require an appeal to be treated under the correct statutory provision.

Wilby Park was operated under a site licence issued under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Following a change in ownership, the appellant sought consent to transfer the existing licence and also applied for a new licence. The respondent issued a document headed as a site licence granted under section 3, with new identifying details and conditions identical to those in the earlier licence.

The appellant appealed against the conditions under section 7. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that the document represented a transfer of the existing licence, so that any challenge should proceed under section 8, and struck out the appeal. The central issues were whether the document was a transferred or newly granted licence and whether the appeal should have been struck out for using the wrong statutory route.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the appellant’s appeal against the conditions attached to the document issued on 20 April 2023 was reinstated.
2. The FTT was entitled to accept the factual findings concerning the correspondence and to find that the transfer application had not been refused. Those findings did not determine the legal character of the document. The question was one of construction and legal effect.
3. The document could only be construed as a new licence. It stated on its face that a licence was granted to the appellant under section 3 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. It had a different reference number and referred to a planning decision made after the earlier licence. It was not the earlier licence endorsed with the transferee’s name and the agreed transfer date, as section 10(2) required.
4. The failure to comply with section 10 was not an omission capable of simple correction. The document was materially different from the existing licence. Administrative guidance and the respondent’s intention could not alter its legal construction.
5. The FTT had wrongly struck out the appeal merely because it had been brought under section 7 rather than section 8. If the document had been a transferred licence, the extensive correspondence about the conditions would have satisfied any requirement for a prior application to vary them, and the appeal could have been treated as one under section 8. The use of the wrong form did not deprive the FTT of jurisdiction.
6. That approach was consistent with the overriding objective in rule 3(2)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, which required fairness, justice, avoidance of unnecessary formality and flexibility in proceedings.
7. The document was not shown to be void for want of a valid application. The circumstances differed from White v South Derbyshire DC [2012] EWHC 3495 (Admin), where the statutory precondition concerning planning permission was absent. The present case did not involve that defect.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): the appeal from the First-tier Tribunal was allowed. The FTT’s strike-out decision was set aside and the appellant’s section 7 appeal was reinstated.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): the appellant’s appeal against licence conditions was struck out on the basis that the document was a transferred licence and that section 8, rather than section 7, applied.