Source: http://selfbuildtimberframe.com/news/179-change-of-use-enforcement-notices-immunities-time-limits-variation
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 21:38:34
Document Index: 435440045

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art.2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art.2', 'art 1', 'art.4', 'art.2', 'art.4', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

Change of use; Enforcement notices; Immunities; Time limits; Variation - Self Build Timber Frames
HomeTimber Frame BuildingsTimber Frame - General InfomationTimber Frame - SpecificationTimber Frame - Self Build GuideMobile Homes & LodgesMobile Homes - General InfomationMobile Homes - SpecificationMobile Homes - FloorplansMobile Homes - Planning PermissionMobile Homes - PricesPlanningExample BuildHouse - 2 Storey Natural Stone Finish.Garden Lodge - 3 Bed Cedar CladdingMobile Home - 65x22FT Twin UnitMobile Home - Cedar Clad Twin-Units2 Bed Mobile Home - Cedar CladdingShropshire 65x22FT Mobile HomeEco Lodge - Californian Pavilion StylePricesContact Change of use; Enforcement notices; Immunities; Time limits; Variation	Dwelling house - agricultural occupancy condition - mobile home erected on part of the site - bungalow built of a different size and in a different position - enforcement notices issued (Case Comment)Citation: J.P.L. 1996, Jun, 497-510Subject: PlanningKeywords: Change of use; Enforcement notices; Immunities; Time limits; VariationDocuments: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:...the protection and preservation of the rural areas. It is considered there is no justification for the siting of the mobile home in connection with the present use of the land. (5) WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Cease the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home and remove any mobile home in the land. Time for compliance: 6 months after this notice takes effect.” The notice was served on Mr Hammond. On or shortly before July 23, 1992 officers of the planning authority came to the site and inspected the mobile home. Mr Hammond told them that it was occupied by his daughter and they said they would return later the same ......letter the Inspector said:“At the enquiry I expressed the view that the notice's allegation of the stationing of a mobile home should be amended to include reference to the purpose for which the mobile home was used at the time when the notice was issued. There was no dispute that the mobile home was used at the time for residential purposes, although the Council referred me to the decision letter dated 9 February ......case of the enforcement notice before me, where there is clear evidence and no dispute concerning the use of the mobile home, the purpose for which the mobile home is used is relevant in the labelling of the allegation. Accordingly, I take the view it is appropriate to correct the notice's allegation to that of the stationing of a mobile home for the purpose of human habitation. I consider this to be a correction that I can make without injustice to ......of connection to the ground, it was not so substantial as to change the nature of what existed from a mobile home to a structure.The third point was that the stationing of the mobile home was development permitted by the General Development Order. This was rejected for the two reasons mentioned in relation to the estoppel point; namely, (1) circumstances had significantly changed since the mobile home was first brought onto the land and (2) in any event, when the enforcement notice was served, there was no ......if required, had been granted. Since the construction of the bungalow was without planning permission, the ancillary use of the mobile home was unauthorised. He [Dyson J.] did not find it necessary to decide whether Mr Masters was correct when he challenged the finding of the first Inspector, that the use of the land for stationing a mobile home was permitted development under Class XXII of Schedule 1 of the General Development Order. The relevant question was not whether the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home during the construction of the bungalow was authorised or not, but whether it had constituted a material change of use from the earlier use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for human habitation simpliciter. If that had constituted a material change of use, then so too had the continued stationing of the mobile home after the bungalow had been completed in 1985 or 1986. In his [Dyson J.'s] view, there was a material change...62. Jarmain v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.1) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 12 April 2000Subject: PlanningKeywords: Enforcement notices; Mobile homes; Time limitsWhere Reported: [2000] 2 P.L.R. 126; [2000] J.P.L. 1063; Official TranscriptDocuments: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context:...JarmainSecretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.1) ROGER RAYMOND JARMAIN V (1) SECRETARY ......April 2000Roch, L.J. Roch LJ Brooke, L.J. Brooke LJ Sedley, L.J. Sedley LJ (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Enforcement notices Mobile homes Time limits enforcement notices time limits breach of planning control service of enforcement notices J farmed a smallholding of 28 hectares and obtained a limited permission for a mobile home on the site in 1983. The permission was renewed on three subsequent occasions and then refused in 1995. Meanwhile in 1993, J had constructed a permanent single storey dwelling at the site in place of the mobile home. In 1996 the local authority served an enforcement notice which was subsequently withdrawn as it required removal of the mobile home which was no longer on site. A replacement notice was issued in 1998 requiring removal of the dwelling. J lodged ......served on him in relation to his single storey dwelling on land where he had only limited permission for a mobile home, was valid. He argued that the breach of planning control complained of in the second notice was a different breach ......and family lifeStatutory interpretation Temporary stop notices Time limits No more pettifoggery. E.G. 2000, 0043, 179 Enforcement notices Immunities Mobile homes Time limits Temporary planning permission for stationing of mobile home - application for certificate of lawfulness refused - enforcement notice issued and withdrawn - second enforcement notice issued. J.P.L. 2000, Oct, 1063-1076 Enforcement notices Immunities Mobile homes Time limits Pettifogging and enforcement J.P.L. 2000, Jul, 664-665, Enforcement notices Immunities Mobile homes Time limits 2000095148 723...63.Mobile Homes Act 1983 c. 34Schedule 1 AGREEMENTS UNDER ACTPart I TERMS IMPLIED BY ACTOwner's obligationspara. 22 Version in force from: November 30, 2007 to present (version 2 of 2)Terms in Context:...PreambleArrangement of Act Overview Document General Materials 20071130 true Mobile Homes Act 1983 c. 34 Schedule 1 AGREEMENTS UNDER ACT Part I TERMS IMPLIED BY ACT Owner's obligations para. 22 1983 ......obligationspara. 22 1 Sch.1 Part 1 paras.10-29 substituted for Sch.1 Part 1 para.10 by Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006/1755 art.2(6) (October 1, 2006: substitution applies in relation ......payable by the occupier to the owner under the agreement;(c) be responsible for repairing the base on which the mobile home is stationed and for maintaining any gas, electricity, water, sewerage or other services supplied by the owner to the pitch or to the mobile home; (d) maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the protected site, including access ways, site boundary fences and trees, which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile home stationed on the protected site; (e) consult the occupier about improvements to the protected site in general, and in particular ......payable by the occupier to the owner under the agreement;(c) be responsible for repairing the base on which the mobile home is stationed and for maintaining any gas, electricity, water, sewerage or other services supplied by the owner to the pitch or to the mobile home; (d) maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the protected site, including access ways, site boundary fences and trees, which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile home stationed on the protected site; (e) consult the occupier about improvements to the protected site in general, and in particular...64.Williams v Herefordshire Council Divisional Court, 16 February 2010Subject: Planning; Criminal law; Local governmentKeywords: Compliance; Enforcement notices; Planning control; Regulatory offencesWhere Reported: UnreportedDocuments: Case Analysis Terms in Context:...The respondent local authority had served an enforcement notice on land owned by W's wife. The notice required that two mobile homes, together with a covered walkway, be removed from the land and that associated site works also be removed. The enforcement ......and some of the associated site works were removed but W and his wife continued to live in the remaining mobile home. An information was laid against W's wife that she had breached the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.179(1) by not complying, as the owner of the land, with the notice by failing to remove both mobile homes and all the associated site works. An information was also laid against W alleging that contrary to s.179(4 ......comply with the notice by continuing to carry out an activity on the land, namely the continued use of the mobile home and associated site works. The magistrates' court convicted both W and his wife. In relation to W it found that whilst there was no express obligation under the notice to cease to use the remaining mobile home it was an implied requirement of the notice and that by continuing to live in the mobile home W had not ceased an unlawful activity as required by the notice. The questions posed for the opinion of the ......the enforcement notice. An enforcement notice had to be clear and unambiguous so that an enforcement notice that simply required mobile homes to be removed from land could not be said to have an implied obligation that an individual who lived in one of the mobile homes had to cease to use the mobile home for residential use. The fact that the individual knew that his use of the mobile home was in breach of planning control was irrelevant. Appeal allowed. It was clear that there were two types of enforcement ......enforcement notice, Miller-Mead applied. Whilst anyone reading the enforcement notice could not be left in any doubt that the mobile homes had to be removed the enforcement notice did not contain any specific obligation to cease to use the mobile homes. Accordingly, it was not open to the magistrates' court to imply an obligation on W to cease to use the remaining mobile home. The fact that W knew that his use of the mobile home was in breach of planning control was irrelevant. It was appropriate to answer the first question posed in the negative...65.Mobile Homes Act 1983 c. 34Schedule 1 AGREEMENTS UNDER ACTPart I TERMS IMPLIED BY ACTQuiet enjoyment of the mobile homepara. 11 Version in force from: November 30, 2007 to present (version 2 of 2)Terms in Context:...PreambleArrangement of Act Overview Document General Materials 20071130 true Mobile Homes Act 1983 c. 34 Schedule 1 AGREEMENTS UNDER ACT Part I TERMS IMPLIED BY ACT Quiet enjoyment of the mobile home para. 11 1983 c. 34 Schedule 1 Part I Quiet enjoyment of the mobile home para. 11 1 Sch.1 Part 1 paras.10-29 substituted for Sch.1 Part 1 para.10 by Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006/1755 art.2(6) (October 1, 2006: substitution applies in relation ......made on or after that date to which 1983 c.34 applies and which relates to the stationing of a mobile home in England)11. The occupier shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the mobile home together with the pitch during the continuance of the agreement, subject to paragraphs 10 12, 13 and 14 In relation ......Sch.1 Part 1 para.10 subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in SI 2007/3151 art.4 by Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (Wales) Order 2007/3151 art.2(6) (November 30, 2007: substitution has effect subject ......SI 2007/3151 art.4)In relation to Wales: 11. The occupier shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the mobile home together with the pitch during the continuance of the agreement, subject to paragraphs 10, 12, 13 and 14...66.Tapsell v Cemery Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 31 January 1994Subject: Landlord and tenantKeywords: Eviction; Mobile homesWhere Reported: (1995) 27 H.L.R. 114; [1994] N.P.C. 13Documents: Case Analysis (1995) 27 H.L.R. 114 Terms in Context:...TapsellCemery TAPSELL V CEMERY (1995) 27 H.L.R. 114 [1994] N.P.C. 13 Tapsell Cemery TAPSELL V CEMERY CA (Civ Div ......31 January 1994Butler-Sloss, L.J. Butler-Sloss LJ Connell, J. Connell J (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Landlord and tenant Eviction Mobile homes Mobile home landlord seeking to terminate agreement improvement in seawall required home beside seawall works to enable house building whether essential works such as to permit removal of mobile home A planning permission, obtained by L to build houses on a site, was subject to a condition that the seawall on the site must be improved. T, whose mobile home was beside the seawall refused to move, contending that the works were not essential and that L had no right to move his home under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 At first instance the judge found that the works were essential to prevent flood damage and could find ......made no error of principle.20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 20060628150451 Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) 1994262186 723...67.No damages for unreasonable refusal of consentCitation: Comm. Leases 1997, 11(7), 12Subject: Planning; DamagesKeywords: Assignment; Consent; Mobile homes; Sale of goodsDocuments: Legal Journals Index Abstract Terms in Context:...CommentNo damages for unreasonable refusal of consent. Comm. Leases 1997, 11(7), 12 Commercial Leases Planning Damages Assignment Consent Mobile homes Sale of goods Whether refusal to consent to sale of mobile home or assignment of agreement prevented recovery of damages for losses where "consent not reasonably to be withheld" and whether agreement should be interpreted in same way as Act. Mobile Homes Act 1983 Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Lee and Neate (1997) 29 H.L.R. 663 (CA (Civ Div...68.R. v Wood (David) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 25 May 2001Subject: Planning; Criminal procedureKeywords: Defences; Enforcement notices; Mobile homes; ProsecutionsWhere Reported: [2001] EWCA Crim 1395; [2002] 1 P.L.R. 1; [2002] J.P.L. 219; Official TranscriptDocuments: Case Analysis Official Transcript Terms in Context:...R.Wood (David) R. V WOOD (DAVID) [2001] EWCA Crim 1395 [2002] 1 P.L.R. 1 [2002] J.P.L. 219 ......Davey, J.Penry-Davey J Judge Rivlin Q.C. Rivlin, HHJ, QC (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Criminal procedure Defences Enforcement notices Mobile homes Prosecutions enforcement notices mobile homes ambit of defence for non-compliance defendant's inaction W appealed against his convictions for non-compliance with two enforcement notices which had required him to remove a concrete base and a mobile home from his land. The mobile home was occupied by W and his family and, as with the concrete base, was placed on the land without planning ......notice - section 179(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.J.P.L. 2002, Feb, 219-224 Defences Enforcement notices Mobile homes 2001519635 723...69. Stroud v Weir Associates Ltd Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 19 January 1987Subject: HousingKeywords: Mobile homesWhere Reported: (1987) 19 H.L.R. 151; [1987] 1 E.G.L.R. 191; (1987) 281 E.G. 1198; Times, January 21, 1987Documents: Case Analysis (1987) 19 H.L.R. 151 Terms in Context:...StroudWeir Associates Ltd STROUD V WEIR ASSOCIATES LTD (1987) 19 H.L.R. 151 [1987] 1 E.G.L.R. 191 (1987) 281 E.G ......Official19 January 1987 O'Connor, L.J. O'Connor LJ Lloyd, L.J. Lloyd LJ Glidewell, L.J. Glidewell LJ (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Housing Mobile homes Mobile homes construction of agreement ascertainment of pitch fee S was the tenant of a mobile home site. In 1983 he was served with a new statement containing the express terms of the agreement between the parties ......1999) 96(25) L.S.G. 30Walker v Badcock (1998) 30 H.L.R. 513; [1997] 2 E.G.L.R. 163; [1997] 42 E.G. 180 Mobile Homes Act 1975 (c.49) 1987180770 723...70.
Loveridge v. Healey (Case Comment)Citation: C.P.N. 2004, 5(May), 3-4Subject: Civil procedureKeywords: Licences; Mobile homes; Notice; Possession claimsDocuments: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract Terms in Context:...CommentCPN Civil Procedure News 2004 5 May Loveridge v. Healey C.P.N. 2004, 5(May), 3-4 Civil procedure Licences Mobile homes Notice Possession claims Mobile Homes Act 1983 Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173; [2004] C.P. Rep. 30 (CA (Civ Div)) LJI0000445023 C.P.N. 3 3 CPR, rr.1.1 & 16.5, Practice Direction (Statements of Case) para. 13.3(1), Mobile Homes Act 1993, Sched.1--site owners (C) bringing county claim against homeowner (D) for declaration of breach of licence agreement...