Planning inspector makes costs award against council over "unreasonable behaviour" in dispute over caravan site

Cornish Farm Touring Park appealed against the council’s failure to issue a decision within the prescribed period on its application for a certificate of lawful use for a site with static caravans used for human habitation.

Inspector Roy Curnow noted parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses, but costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and caused unnecessary expense.

He said: “The nub of the case for costs is that the application should clearly have been approved. Not doing so led to an appeal where there was no chance of the council succeeding. This was unreasonable behaviour that led to unnecessary costs to the appellant.”

Cornish Farm argued the council never made its case clearly, failed to advance a substantive case to counter clear case law and failed to substantiate its case that the original planning permission restricted occupation of the caravans to temporary accommodation.

Somerset countered that the argument that the application should have been approved was unconvincing and its issue was with the permanent residential accommodation in caravans.

The council said Cornish Farm’s application for caravans for human habitation was unclear, and its vagueness was exemplified by it trying to reverse the burden of proof by asking the council to justify its case.

Mr Curnow said: “I find that the appellant’s application for a certificate clearly sought to establish that the unrestricted use for human habitation, itself a term used in statute, of caravans on the land would be lawful.

“Had the appellant sought a certificate with restrictions, he would have said so. Had the council found the term to be vague it could have sought clarification from the appellant, but it did not. In any event, read in an ordinary manner the certificate clearly sought to establish unrestricted occupation of the caravans.”

The inspector that in September 2024 Somerset issued a certificate of lawfulness that had the effect of removing a previous 28-day limit for siting caravans.

“Whilst the condition remains on the permission, its terms cannot, as was agreed by the parties, be enforced,” he said.

“This is important in assessing an application for a certificate, the decision on which is to be based on the council’s ability to enforce against the use proposed and whether there is an enforcement notice precluding the use proposed. There was no such notice.”

Loss of the earlier condition meant that after the council failed to make a decision on the application, which left Cornish Farm “little choice than to lodge an appeal”.

Mr Curnow said Somerset then pursued its case at appeal in the light of evidence that clearly pointed in the opposite direction.

“Thus, I find the council’s actions, above, amounted to unreasonable behaviour. It led to an appeal in which unnecessary costs were incurred by the appellant.” Costs are to be  assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

A Somerset spokesperson said: “The substantive argument was that the certificate should have been issued within the statutory period, and that it should not have been necessary to take the matter to appeal.

“They claimed the council did not make a timely and correct decision, nor review its position during the appeal process. Having considered arguments from both sides, the inspector concluded that the council’s actions amounted to unreasonable behaviour and led to an appeal in which unnecessary costs were incurred by the appellant.”

Somerset said the inspector made a costs award against it but “we do not, at this stage, know the amount of the costs that will be claimed”.

Mark Smulian