Haytop: Court of Appeal Confirms Site Licensing Cannot Circumvent Planning Control

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Haytop Country Park Ltd v Amber Valley Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1442 clarifies the relationship between planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the “1990 Act”) and site licensing under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the “1960 Act”). It resolves uncertainty around how the two regimes interact, particularly where park operators attempt to rely on site licensing to bypass existing planning restrictions.

Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Holgate confirmed that site licensing cannot be used to circumvent planning control. Instead, it must operate “in harmony” with the planning regime.

Background and Enforcement History

Haytop Country Park in Derbyshire is subject to historic planning permissions granted in 1952 and 1966, which authorise the siting of up to 60 caravans, subject to detailed conditions. The site is also regulated by a site licence issued in 1968, which similarly limits the number of caravans to 60. In addition, part of the Park has been protected by a tree preservation order, since 1978.

From 2017, the new park operator (“Haytop”) unlawfully felled 121 protected trees and undertook a series of engineering works, including reprofiling the land, creating levelled terraces for caravans, and installing concrete bases and an internal roadway.

Amber Valley Borough Council (the “Council”) is both the local planning authority under the 1990 Act and as the site licensing authority under the 1960 Act. Between 2019 and 2021, it issued a series of planning enforcement and tree replacement notices, all of which were upheld on appeal.

In 2022, Haytop applied to the Council for a new site licence for 30 caravans, contending that permitted development rights under Class B, Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the “GPDO”) would arise upon the grant of a licence. The Council instead granted a licence limited to 3 caravans, reflecting the constraints imposed by the preceding planning enforcement and tree replacement notices.

Haytop appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (Residential Property) (“FTT”), contending that the planning enforcement and tree replacement notices were not relevant to the licensing decision. The FTT directed the Council to grant a site licence for 18 caravans. It held that, in determining the number of caravans to be authorised for site licensing purposes, the decision-maker should have regard to the requirements of the tree replacement notices, but not to those of the planning enforcement notices.

The Council appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), which overturned the FTT’s decision, holding that:

• Haytop was seeking to benefit from unlawful activity, which as a matter of principle is impermissible.
• The FTT was wrong to disregard the requirements of the planning enforcement notices.
• A site licence cannot include conditions that conflict with the requirements of planning enforcement notices.
• Planning issues must be resolved before a licence is granted.
• The site licence must reflect the established ‘planning baseline’.

Court of Appeal Decision

Haytop appealed the UUT’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court framed the question before it as follows (paragraph 16):

The upshot is that this court is asked to resolve the difference of law between the two Tribunals: can a site licence be granted for the siting of caravans in locations which are inconsistent with the planning permissions upon which the licence application is based, or which is inconsistent with the determination of the planning rights in the statutory process for taking enforcement action against breaches of planning control?

The Court dismissed Haytop’s arguments and held that:

• Future permitted development rights under the GPDO cannot be relied upon. Such rights arise only if a licence requires certain works, making Haytop’s arguments circular.
• Enforcement notices remain binding. They can only be overridden by a subsequent planning permission, not by a site licence.
• Planning and licensing are interdependent. The statutory framework requires both to be considered together.
• Site licenses cannot expand planning permissions. Historic permissions must be interpreted in full, including all relevant conditions and limitations.
• The site licensing concept of “disregarding purely planning considerations” is limited. It applies to protecting existing lawful use rights, not to overriding operative planning permissions or circumventing the requirements of an existing planning enforcement notice.

Fundamentally, the Court rejected the idea that planning and licensing operate in separate spheres, endorsing instead the principle that licensing must align with planning control.

Haytop’s application to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused in February 2026.

Conclusion - Key Principles and Practical Implications

Haytop’s protracted journey through the planning, tribunal, and court systems confirms that the site licensing regime cannot be used to circumvent planning control. The lawful use of a site is defined by extant planning permissions and their conditions or limitations. The case highlights the importance of accurately establishing the planning baseline, including the effect of enforcement action, with planning decisions, including tree preservation orders, establishing parameters for site licensing.

The experienced planning and licensing solicitors at Tozers can guide you through the interaction between site licensing and planning control, ensuring compliance with the established planning baseline while reducing the risk of enforcement action or legal challenge.

How can Tozers help?

Tozers can advise on the interaction between planning control and site licensing, helping clients identify the relevant planning baseline and ensuring compliance with both systems to reduce the risk of enforcement action or legal challenge.

Contact our legal experts