Haytop Country Park Limited (Appellant) v Amber Valley Borough Council (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0199

Parties

Appellant(s)

Haytop Country Park Ltd

Respondent(s)

Amber Valley Borough Council

Issue

Was it unduly burdensome for the Council to issue a caravan site licence with conditions restricting the site to three or six caravans, when the site has planning permission for 60?

Facts

Haytop Country Park Limited (“Haytop”) is the operator of a caravan site (“the site”) in Derbyshire. Haytop purchased the site in 2016. Amber Valley Borough Council (“the Council”) is the local authority in the site’s area. The Council is the licensing authority under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (“the 1960 Act”). The 1960 Act requires an occupier of land to obtain a licence to use land as a caravan site. The licensing authority has the power to grant such licences and to attach conditions to the licence, such as the total number of permitted caravans or where they must be sited. The Council is also the relevant planning authority, responsible for deciding applications for planning permission. Planning control is governed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”). S57 of the TCPA 1990 requires planning permission for “development”, which includes building, engineering, mining or other operations on the land, or the making of a material change in the use of any buildings or land. The site has the benefit of two planning permissions, granted in 1952 and 1966 respectively, which permit the use of the site for up to 60 caravans. In 1968, a site licence was granted under the 1960 Act, with conditions restricting the site to 60 caravans, requiring the caravan to be on hardstanding, and providing that the “standings” should be in the areas specified on a plan. In 1978, a tree preservation order was made under planning legislation. This protected part of the site as a woodland and prohibited felling of any trees within that area without the Council’s consent. Haytop acquired the land in 2016. In 2017, they unlawfully felled 121 trees in the woodland area which was protected by the tree preservation order. They then carried out engineering works on the land, which involved reprofiling the land, creating a series of levelled terraces for caravans, and laying concrete bases and an internal roadway. On 15 March 2019, the Council issued two enforcement notices under section 172 of the TCPA 1990, which alleged breaches of development control. The second notice related to the engineering works on the site (“the enforcement notice”) and required Haytop to reverse many of the changes which were made to the land without permission. Haytop appealed, and the appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector and the High Court. The notice allowed 6 months for compliance from the final determination of that appeal. On 27 January 2021, the Council served a tree replacement notice under section 207 of the TCPA 1990. This required the planting of 100 trees. Haytop’s appeal against this was largely dismissed. On 26 April 202, the Council granted Haytop a new caravan site licence, following Haytop’s application for a new licence covering 30 caravans. The new licence conditions limited the site to three caravans, however, which had to be placed in locations which were said not to interfere with the tree replanting notice or the remedial steps required by the enforcement notice. Haytop appealed against that the decision to the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) (“the FTT”). The FTT allowed the appeal, to the extent of ordering the Council to issue a caravan site licence for occupation of up to 18 caravans. The FTT held that in determining the number of caravans to be authorised by the site licence, the decision maker must have regard to the requirements of the tree replanting notice, but not to the requirements of the enforcement notice. The Council appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (“the UT”). The UT allowed the Council’s appeal and held that the FTT was wrong to disregard the requirements of the enforcement notice. The UT held that the site licence could not impose a condition which was inconsistent with the requirements of planning control in the enforcement notice. The UT identified three additional pitches to be added to the Council’s licensing decision, meaning that six pitches were authorised in total. Haytop appealed to the Court of Appeal (“the CA”), which dismissed the appeal. Haytop now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

10 December 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top