Haytop Country Park Limited v Amber Valley Borough Council

A caravan site licence must operate in harmony with the express planning permission relied on to obtain it. The licensing authority may impose tighter controls for legitimate site-licensing purposes, but cannot enlarge the planning permission or relax its conditions. A final enforcement determination is therefore relevant where it fixes the planning baseline. An enforcement notice has continuing prospective effect: compliance does not discharge it, and reinstatement of removed works remains controlled. A permitted development right arising from site-licence conditions cannot be used to circumvent the planning regime. An operator seeking a different scheme must obtain a fresh permission or, where available, a variation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The appellant operated a caravan site on land subject to planning permissions, a tree preservation order and environmental designations. After unlawful tree-felling and engineering works, the Council served enforcement notices. The Planning Inspector upheld the operational-development notice and refused deemed planning permission; the High Court dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal.

The Council later granted a site licence for three caravans. The First-tier Tribunal increased this to 18 and treated the enforcement notice as irrelevant to site licensing. The Upper Tribunal allowed the Council’s appeal under [2024] UKUT 237 (LC), directing that only three further plots outside the enforcement area be added. The central issue was whether the licensing regime could disregard the planning baseline and create Class B permitted development rights inconsistent with the planning permissions and enforcement determination.

Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision. Nugee LJ and Moylan LJ agreed with Holgate LJ.

1. Under section 3(3) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, a site licence depends on an express planning permission for use of the land as a caravan site. The two regimes must operate in harmony. The permission must be read as a whole, including its conditions, which form an integral part of the permission. The reasoning in Barton Park Estates Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government was applied, and the principle in R v Kent Justices ex parte Crittenden was approved.
2. A licensing authority may impose tighter controls, including fewer caravans or different location requirements, for purposes relevant to site licensing. It cannot enlarge the planning permission or relax its conditions. The approach in Cartledge v Scottish Ministers (No.1) was followed. The authorities concerning pre-existing unconditional use rights, including Hartnell v Minister of Housing and Local Government, Esdell Caravan Parks Limited v Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council and Babbage v North Norfolk District Council, were confined to their distinct circumstances. Lord Denning MR’s wider dictum in Esdell was obiter and was disapproved.
3. Under section 181 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an enforcement notice has continuing prospective effect. Compliance does not discharge it, and resumption or reinstatement of the prohibited development remains controlled. Section 180 allows a later planning permission to displace the notice only so far as inconsistent with that permission, without removing liability for earlier breaches.
4. The Class B right in Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 must be read in the statutory context of the two regimes. It cannot be used to legitimise development inconsistent with the express permission or the final enforcement determination. An operator seeking to depart from the permission must apply under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, where available, or seek a fresh permission.
5. The FTT therefore erred in treating the operational-development enforcement notice as irrelevant. The site licence could not approve plots dependent on the unlawful works, although plots outside the enforcement notice’s scope could be authorised. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): under [2025] EWCA Civ 1442, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): under [2024] UKUT 237 (LC), allowed the Council’s appeal from the First-tier Tribunal and held that the planning baseline could not be disregarded.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): on 6 July 2023, allowed the operator’s appeal in part, increasing the authorised plots from three to 18, while treating the operational-development enforcement notice as irrelevant to the licensing decision.
• High Court: under [2022] EWHC 1848 (Admin), dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal against the Planning Inspector’s decision concerning the operational-development enforcement notice.