The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with the question as to whether a caravan stationed on a pontoon structure turning it into a houseboat is covered under the auspices of the Mobile Home Act 1983.
Background:
Tingdene Marinas Ltd is the freehold owner of land known as Hartford Marina, which comprises mixed residential and leisure berths. Around the lake is a road giving access to pontoons at which houseboats are moored, and there are also narrow boats and lodges. Before 1998, the previous owner of the Marina invented the "Hartford houseboat”. Ms. Jaffe lives in a Willerby caravan which is stationed on such a structure. She had obtained a Certificate of Lawful Use from the relevant local planning authority.
Tingdene Marinas Ltd served a notice to quit to Ms. Jaffe. She sought protection under the Mobile Home Act 1983. The question was whether the Act applies to such houseboats and also whether the land was a ‘protected site’ under the Act. The courts found that Hartford houseboats are in fact caravans stationed on land.
Decision:
The CoA dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision that Jaffe was entitled to the Act's protections. The first issue related to whether the Upper Tribunal (UT) had erred in concluding that the land in question was a ‘protected site’. The first part of the definition of 'protected site' had been satisfied because the land occupied by the statutory caravan was “land in respect of which a site licence is required”. The next issue was whether the land was “land in respect of which the relevant planning permission or site licence is expressed to be granted for holiday use only”.
The CoA held that the term “houseboat” within the planning permission and subsequent certificate applied to the Hartford houseboat. One of the reasons is that the houseboats were in situ at the time that the planning permission was granted. In granting permission for the stationing of houseboats on land covered by water, “the local planning authority had given permission for both of the components of the 'houseboats' to be on that land, configured in the way in which they were (and are) configured.” Permission for the houseboat to be stationed on the land necessarily encompassed permission for the caravan to be stationed. The fact that the caravan could not be in its approved location without the aid of the float was irrelevant.
Lord Justice Andrews observed that a permitted use is expressed in the grant of permission and any restrictions in operation of that use must be expressed by condition. Contrary to what the appellant tried to argue, the certificate of lawfulness legitimised the use of the land and, therefore, operated as a planning permission. The lawful development certificate issued by the LA ensured the site was ‘protected’ under the Mobile Homes Act.
Implications:
This decision demonstrates the importance of the term of the planning permission. The judgement also recaps the law relating to conditions and limitations. The decision makes it clear that a certificate of lawfulness does not afford the respondent a defence but operates as granting the necessary planning permission. It reminds us that one of the main aims of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 was to put those whose permanent residence was a mobile home on a similar footing to private tenants of housing.