My Planning Permission Does Not Contain a Condition Expressly Restricting Use to Holiday or Leisure. Can the Units Be Occupied Residentially?

In Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74, the Supreme Court held that the correct approach to interpreting planning permissions is to consider what the reasonable reader would understand the words to mean in the context of the overall purpose of the planning permission and with common sense. The basic rule is that a planning permission should stand by itself, and the meaning should be clear within the four corners of the document.

Background

This approach was applied in a recent appeal decision at Spindlewood Country Holiday Park, Hastings. The site in question had long been occupied by static caravans for leisure and holiday use, under a 1985 planning permission, which was later varied by a 2002 section 73 permission, to extend the season from eight to nine months.

Whist the 1985 permission described the development as a ‘holiday’ use (being holiday chalets, static caravans, touring caravans and camping) and imposed a condition limiting the season of occupation — and the 2002 permission confirmed, in its reasons, that occupation should remain for holiday purposes during the longer season permitted by that permission — neither permission imposed a condition restricting occupancy to holiday or leisure use, or otherwise prohibited residential use.

An application for a certificate of lawful use was submitted to the local planning authority to confirm that occupation of the static caravans residentially during the nine-month occupancy period was lawful. The applicant argued that the reference to ‘holiday’ in the description of development of the 1985 permission applied only to the chalets authorised, and in any event, that the proposed residential use would not materially differ from the existing lawful use.

Decision

The Inspector, referencing the approach in Trump, dismissed the appeal, concluding that the permitted use must be determined by interpreting the permission itself—not by considering whether other uses might be similar. The permissions in this case authorised a holiday caravan park and nothing more. The lack of a specific condition prohibiting residential occupation did not mean such use was lawful.

The Inspector clarified that any change to residential use must be assessed separately to determine whether it would amount to a material change. Although the number of caravans would remain unchanged, the pattern of occupation would, in the Inspector’s opinion, shift materially — from intermittent holiday use to continuous residential use for most of the year.

This would alter the character of the site in several key respects, including occupancy patterns, traffic and activity levels, infrastructure impacts and its economic role. These changes, taken together, represented a material change in use, taking the use outside the scope of the operative planning permissions.

Matters to consider before submitting an application

1. Reliance on gaps in wording or missing conditions – planning decision-makers will consider the description of development, relevant policies, and all conditions (including the reasons for their imposition) in the round. The absence of a condition expressly restricting residential occupation does not mean such a use is permitted.
2. Impact of switching from holiday to residential use – whilst this may feel like a minor change, the Inspector in this decision highlighted that, in planning terms, this can be a material change of use.
3. Seasonal occupancy is not a route to quasi-residential use – how the units are occupied is just as relevant as how long they are occupied for. A site for full-time residents functions very differently from one with intermittent holidaymakers
4. Losing holiday accommodation can harm the local economy – the Council argued, and the Inspector agreed, that the loss of holiday accommodation can harm the local economy. Even where on-site facilities are available, visitors are more likely to spend in the wider area, whereas permanent residents typically generate a different and often reduced level of economic activity.