fbpx
Skip to main content

Camping and Caravan Site Enforcement

A caravan and camping site,
not a permanent campsite

I acquired the dilapidated old buildings at Heacham with planning consent to turn them into three holiday homes by the beach. Nice little retirement project, I think to myself. 

2017 - As cash flow became tight, I opened up a short-term summer pop-up campsite. The legislation states you can run a campsite (or anything else on your land) for 28 days with few limitations. We have a 2-acre plot of agricultural land but no cows to graze on it, so obviously I move forward to let it out to campers who want to camp on sunny days by the sea. To my surprise, I was inundated with guests in that season but found limitations on what I could operate in that 28-day period in August 2017.

Being so close to the sea makes the site perfect for an August campsite, when the weather's nice and people want to go to the beach

Permanent Campsite

2018 - I investigate the possibilities of becoming a certificated location with an umbrella company like Freedom Camping Club, Caravan and Motorhome Club, The Camping and Caravanning Club, or The Greener Camping Club. These allow you to be associated with them and obtain a certificate of operation.

Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain these for the 2018 season, so continued to operate under 28 day period. I was, at this stage, somewhat naive in the operation of campsites, and in some cases the scary people that attend campsites (alongside the otherwise more amicable and pleasant people).

At this stage of our usage, it was truly a barebones campsite. There was 1 toilet which was a chemical toilet, half the field was covered in thistles, and the fence often fell down, so guests woke up to the neighbour’s cows wandering around tents first thing in the morning. I believed we could only use a 10-metre plot along the side of the fence as the vast majority of our field was covered by Article 4 restricting our usage (I believed).

Official maps show that Article 4 usage doesn't apply to the southernmost 10 metres of the site, so while I still thought that the whole site was subject to Article 4, I only used this stretch of land

We ultimately got certification from The Camping and Caravanning Club at the end of August 2018

Read the full certificate here

First Complaint

On a very rainy summer’s day, a customer had paid £8.50 to stay at the campsite for her, her husband and 3 children. She became quite negative about the experience between the bare basics campsite, wet and very windy weather, and getting themselves stuck in a boggy campsite field. Unfortunately, the negativity was far too much for me to handle based on what I felt was a very minor fee to charge. I politely advised they need to get themselves out of the field and refused to entertain any more discussion that it was my responsibility. Looking back, this was probably my error but, hey-ho, we learn by experience!

Luckily the customer did get themselves out but then went on to complain to the council about the campsite being non-adequate as a public facility/commercial facility. Throughout this season we were developing improved toilet blocks in the internal of an agricultural building where we were only using the internal to house some flushable toilets, washbasins, and showers (this is non-operational development and should not require planning consent as it is a permitted development use, not that I knew then as much as I know now).

So, the Environmental Quality Officer does a spot visit on us complete with clipboard and nametag, and makes notes on different issues which they come across. The odd cement board laying in the gravel becomes a toxic asbestos fibre board which could destroy the world, I felt was the point of the officer trying to make. The site was, at this stage, under development and as such there were building materials and tools which I was advised had to be fenced off to avoid members of the public falling into cement mixers. I believed I’d said yes and no in the correct areas and helped to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the officer.

This site has undergone a lot of work since I first acquired it in 2016

Enforcement

Unfortunately, a few weeks later I received an email from Enforcement Officer Heidi Wedge that the Environment Officer advised I had developed a toilet block and in doing so had made permanent infrastructure, therefore making my 28-day campsite into a permanent campsite, which was unlawful as it extended beyond 28 days

Naïvely, I believed the Environmental Quality Officer, Heidi Wedge, and her manager Matthew Clarey knew what they were talking about, and were trying to guide me for the benefit of my business and the community; to limit breaches of law and keep society running smoothly without consumers and small business managers hitting too many confrontations of views. 

I was wrong.

Planning Application

The email gave me two options: either I apply for planning consent for a permanent toilet block and a permanent campsite approval or I demolish the toilet block. At this stage, I’d done a bit of research and had obtained a certificate from The Camping and Caravanning Club to operate a caravan site within the plot. Although this wasn’t a subject I was hugely knowledgeable about at the time, I was learning more about it as the months went on. So, I applied for a Temporary Campsite. At this stage, my thought was: “How difficult can it be?” I’m in a poor agricultural field of just 2 acres, it’s right by the beach 200 yards away, I’m surrounded by static caravans and seaside cafes, and historically the plot of land had been used for camping by farmer Thomas Raines, who applied for water for his campsite in 1934 and became a shelter for campers in the great flood of 1953 serving as a high point from floodwaters. I thought the likelihood of the council approving was good.

The planning application was refused for two reasons:

1) The location and point of entry were allegedly within a flood risk zone, despite the surrounding land shielding from floods as far back as 1953 and the campsite itself being raised.

2) The point of entry/exit was not approved by Norfolk Highways as the neighbours had built an unlawful 2-metre fence along the road, and an Environment Agency hazard sign by the side of the road blocked visibility.

On refusal, I looked into sorting these issues and improving those facts.

The Environment Agency reviewed the flood risk at the point of entry and decided I was correct. They then amended the flood risk at entry/exit. Visibility was improved as the flood risk hazard sign placed by the Environment Agency that was blocking visibility was removed.

August 2019 - We received an enforcement notice giving us 3 months to remove all infrastructure. Which I interpreted as being the toilet block, which, of course, meant demolishing all that we had built. As the enforcement notice gave us 90 days to comply with their instruction, we immediately applied for planning consent for the toilet block.

This time I did my research and we obtained planning consent 3 months to the day for a toilet block. I now know as an older and wiser man that pre-approval development agricultural buildings would have given me permitted use rights from day one. Unfortunately, I didn’t know this at the time and unfortunately, I now know that the council (despite my understanding of how government operates) are not there to encourage young signpost businesses, nor to achieve a result in a proactive, non-biased position.

July 2020 - Just when I thought it was all over, the enforcement officer reappears in an email asking about whether we have removed infrastructure from the site. I explain we now have planning consent for the toilet block and now operate a certificated location. She advises, notwithstanding that info, that we still have enforcement notices still to be resolved. At this stage, I broke off communication because I felt that she was peddling utter nonsense and not progressing the case in any meaningful way.

With this, we got planning permission to build the toilets, just not use them for commercial use

Read the full approval here

Covid

August 2020 - Deep in the year of COVID, and we are very busy. There’s control of demand with increased prices, customers are very nervous about Covid, and we’re having to implement lots of cleaning regimes. The Government writes up documentation to the country to tell local governments and councils to be lenient with tourism and not pursue enforcement. Despite that advice, enforcement turns up, takes photos, and claims I’m in breach of this, that, and the other.

Tourism is a vital income for coastal areas

Read the full LGA report

In 2020, we were operating as a camping and caravan site under The Camping and Caravanning Club's certification

September 2020 - Another enforcement visit, again gathering information on my usage and how I may or may not have infringed on it. I expressed that I’m no longer a temporary or permanent campsite, I am a certificated location with the Camping and Caravanning Club. At this stage, she believed I exceeded my occupancy, at which I acknowledged I was operating under the limitations of the Camping and Caravanning Club, and was simultaneously operating under the COVID 56 days camping legislation, therefore NOT exceeding my allowance and being perfectly lawful in my operation. However, she didn't enforce against me for a camping and caravan site, she enforced against a permanent campsite. I explained that throughout the Covid period, permitted development for camping extended to a 56-day period, and since I undertook camping alongside the fence (which is outside Article 4) this means I had unlimited camping during the Covid period. Any vehicles on the site are based on a Camping and Caravanning Club Planning Exemption and are therefore allowed to be placed anywhere on my site (during this date range was 5 caravans and 10 tents).

Criminal Enforcement

2021 - I receive enforcement procedures to go to court for criminal enforcement due to the “continued use of a permanent campsite and refusing to follow the conditions of enforcement regarding the use of infrastructure”. At the hearing, the Enforcement Officer shows numerous exhibits on all the items that she believes strengthen her point of view. On all key points, the details of enforcement are a fictional wishlist rather than an unbiased gathering of facts. Correspondence with the council’s legal department proved non-proactive and non-productive, so I engaged the services of Birketts Legal. Birketts reemphasised the importance of the position that a campsite is a different legal entity from a caravan site and gave me chapter and verse of case law for me to understand and quote in more persuasive discussions. After thousands of pounds spent on legal advice and attending magistrates courts on numerous occasions, the council agreed to accept a new planning application.

2nd Planning Application

This application was submitted and the application was for a caravan and campsite (regulated by the local authority rather than the existing one regulated by Camping and Caravanning Club). This was based on the fact that my fallback position was a caravan and campsite which had been in existence since 2018. As such, this was not a new application, this was a retrospective application for my existing permitted development usage of a Camping and Caravanning Club site (exempt from local authority planning). In obtaining that, my hope would be the council would understand that I do not operate a permanent campsite and that the infrastructure in question (toilet block) on the enforcement does not need to be demolished.

The application was refused by the planning department on the following points:

Unfortunately, after carefully considering this application, the LPA concludes that the site does not benefit from exemption regardless of the certificates that have been issued.

The General Permitted Development Order, 2015 (as amended) states at Section 3: ‘Subject to the provisions of this Order and regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (general development orders), planning permission is hereby granted for the classes of development described as permitted development in Schedule 2.’

General Development Orders - 75

It is a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order made on or after 30th November 2017, that development which:

(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and

(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, must not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under regulation 77(approval of local planning authority.)

General Development Orders - 78

(1) The local planning authority for the purposes of regulations 75 to 77 is the authority to which an application for approval under regulation 77 would fall to be made if it were an application for planning permission.

(2) The fee payable in connection with an application for such approval is £30.

(3) Approval required by regulation 75 is to be treated:

  • (a) for the purposes of the provisions of the TCPA 1990 relating to appeals, as approval required by a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission; and
  • (b) for the purposes of the provisions of any general development order relating to the time within which notice of a decision should be given, as approval required by a condition attached to a grant of planning permission.

Understanding the reason for refusal

I understand sections 75 to 78 regarding the conservation of habitat species regulation 2017. In fact, I got caught up in this subject matter 2 years ago and found myself in high court backpedalling as fast as I could to stop legal costs from exceeding, finally managing to stop them at £20,000. The key point on this legislation is - and let me dwell on the importance of this - quote:

"a project or plan must not begin until the local planning authority has approved a Habitat Regulation Assessment."

Now, as I've already said this was not a new planning application, this was a retrospective planning application, i.e. the plan or project already started in 2018. It is impossible not to start when it had already started. If the local authorities are to be correct on this issue then I would need a time machine to go back to the 30th of August 2018 and not start.

The interpretation of the local authority is ludicrous. I agree it's very important to ensure no damage is caused to the Designated Protected Areas, and in fact, no damage has been shown to occur over the last 5 years of my trading. To say I must not start something that had already started is impossible. 

I've done my utmost these past 5 years to protect the ecology of this site

2nd Criminal Enforcement

August 2022 - I received documentation to advise I’d be taken back to criminal court based on the operation of the site and failure to report on the infrastructure.

As the letter on the right suggests, I struggled time-and-time-again to get in contact with the appropriate bodies and discuss what was expected of me and an appropriate way forward.

I made many attempts with the goal of sorting out what I needed to do to operate the site lawfully.

In return, I was accused of criminal prosecution for which I intend to plead Not Guilty.

A response to discussions on criminal enforcement

Read the full document here

LPA fail/refuse to enter into communications

After going to court, talking with the council’s legal advisor, and going through the case step-by-step, the council still entered into no communications, and there were no negotiations on points to whittle down issues to get to one clear issue or action.

Their only focus is to take me to court to condemn me for failing to comply with every point of their unclear enforcement notice.

I’m now waiting for the next hearing on July 8th where I need to put my plea in of not guilty and try to get the magistrate to understand the points I raise. Unfortunately, magistrates assume that the police and local authorities know what they’re talking about. Magistrates aren’t legally trained, and therefore rightly feel they should rely on views, opinions, and guidance from individuals who are thought to be experts in the subject matter.

My experience is that they are not, magistrates need to be prepared to listen and understand the accused who, although isn’t legally trained, often becomes very knowledgeable of the legal status of the facts in question.

Nullity

Stephen Scown advises on the appropriate defence that the entire enforcement was a nullity. It was unclear and imprecise, and the points raised would stop the legal right of existing permitted development rights. My hope was that this would open communications between the two parties of my legal advisor and the council.

The letter from my advisor is on the right.

Unfortunately, no communications were exchanged and not even so much as proof of receipt of the letter was received. Nothing at all was heard until March 2023 when I get a new hearing to go back to court for operating a campsite and failure to demolish infrastructure based on the enforcement notice. I have meetings with enforcement consultants who, again, inform me this document is a nullity and should not be used in court to enforce against me as it’s inadequate, unclear, and wrong.

An example of what makes an enforcement a "nullity", AKA Waste Paper