John Romans Park Homes Ltd v Hancock, Re Morn Gate Caravan Park

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals concern the status of two pitches on a caravan park located in The City, referred to as the Park, which has planning permission and a site licence for mixed seasonal and permanent use. The appellant, Company A, purchased the Park in May 2015 from Company B. The respondents occupy two pitches: Pitch 43 and Pitch 48. The agreements for occupation of these pitches were entered into by the predecessor of Company A in 2001 and 2003. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT) determined that these pitches formed part of a protected site under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the 1983 Act), granting statutory security of tenure to the occupiers. The appellant appealed against these decisions, challenging whether the Park, with mixed use, constitutes a protected site under the relevant legislation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a mobile home park with planning permission and a site licence for mixed seasonal and permanent use qualifies as a protected site under section 1(1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and section 1(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
2. Whether the relevant planning permission or site licence for individual pitches on the Park restricts use to holiday or seasonal occupation, thus excluding them from protection under the 1983 Act.
3. Whether the agreements for occupation of Pitches 43 and 48 entitle the occupiers to station mobile homes on a protected site and occupy them as their only or main residence.
4. Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by treating the Park as a whole as a protected site rather than distinguishing between individual pitches with different permitted uses.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the planning permission and site licence for the Park, particularly as they relate to Pitches 43 and 48, were expressed to be granted for holiday use only, thus falling within exceptions under section 1(2)(a) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
• It was submitted that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Hampton supports the interpretation that mixed use sites should be subdivided according to planning permissions and site licences distinguishing between residential and holiday use.
• The appellant argued that the status of individual pitches must be assessed based on the planning and regulatory status at the date the relevant agreement was entered into.
• Evidence was presented that the twelve permanent residential pitches were identified in planning documents and site licences, and that Pitches 43 and 48 were not among those, indicating they were for holiday use only.
• Additional factors cited included the location of the pitches, pitch fees, commission arrangements, and the form of the pitch agreements, which did not comply with the 1983 Act’s requirements for permanent residential pitches.
• The appellant contended that the FTT erred by failing to consider these factors and by treating the Park as a whole rather than focusing on individual pitches.

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents supported the FTT’s decision that the Park was a protected site and that the 1983 Act applied to their pitches.
• They relied on assurances from the previous owner that they had the right to occupy their pitches as their main residence without seasonal restrictions.
• One respondent additionally argued that a site licence condition restricting seasonal occupation was ultra vires the powers of the local authority, although this argument was not considered by the FTT.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Hampton [2001] EWCA Civ 1474	Clarification that mixed use sites may be subdivided for the purpose of determining protected site status; individual pitches designated for permanent residential use are protected, others for holiday use are not.	The court distinguished Berkeley on the facts, noting that unlike Berkeley, the planning permission and site licence in this case did not designate specific pitches for permanent or holiday use, supporting the conclusion that the entire Park was a protected site.
Balthasar v Mullane [1985] 2 EGLR 260	Definition of "protected site" requires planning permission for stationing caravans; no planning permission means no protected site status.	The court applied this principle to confirm that planning permission is fundamental to establishing protected site status.
Murphy v Watt [2011] 1 WLR 2129	The agreement must fall within the 1983 Act at its inception; subsequent changes cannot confer protection.	The court applied this to determine that the status of the pitch agreements must be assessed based on the planning and regulatory status at the date the agreements were made.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework, emphasizing that the 1983 Act applies only to agreements relating to mobile homes on protected sites used as the occupier's main residence. The definition of a protected site under the 1968 Act requires that the land have a site licence and planning permission not restricted to holiday use only or subject to conditions preventing year-round habitation.

The court noted that the Park had planning permission and a site licence permitting mixed use without express restriction of particular pitches to holiday use only. Unlike the Berkeley case, where specific pitches were designated for permanent residential use, here the planning permission and site licence were silent on the allocation of individual pitches.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the twelve permanent residential pitches identified in earlier planning documents restricted the status of other pitches. It held that the relevant question is the terms of the planning permission and site licence as expressed, not the number of pitches actually used for permanent residence or other practical considerations.

The court found that the Park owner had the freedom to allocate pitches for permanent or seasonal use and that the absence of express restrictions meant the entire Park qualified as a protected site. The court also addressed the appellant's contention regarding the Park rules imposing seasonal occupation requirements, concluding that these rules did not effectively restrict year-round occupation.

Accordingly, the court upheld the FTT’s reasoning that the entire Park, including Pitches 43 and 48, constituted a protected site under the 1983 Act and that the respondents were entitled to statutory protection.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are dismissed.

The court held that the Park, with mixed seasonal and permanent use permitted by planning permission and site licence, is a protected site under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Consequently, the agreements for occupation of Pitches 43 and 48 fall within the scope of the 1983 Act, granting the occupiers statutory security of tenure.

As a direct effect, Company A must provide a written statement of the terms of occupation to the occupier of Pitch 48 within 14 days. The possession claim concerning Pitch 43 is to be determined by the County Court. No broader legal precedent was set beyond affirming the correct application of existing statutory provisions and case law to mixed use caravan parks without express pitch-specific restrictions.