High Court rejects challenge to failure to take enforcement action over caravan site near listed building

Aaron Canham owns Upper Butterworth End, near Sowerby, a Grade II listed former farmhouse adjacent to Ladstone Park, which since 1962 has been licensed as a caravan site.

Calderdale in August 2018 granted a new site licence for Ladstone Park under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to interested party SRG Park Holding. This allowed for up to 28 caravans.

At the time there were nine static caravans on the site and three vacant pitches but work started soon after on additional pitches.

Mr Justice Swift said the case concerned Calderdale’s decision not to take enforcement action in respect of the three areas of hard standing on the caravan park immediately adjacent to Upper Butterworth End, the closest of them only some eight metres away.

Owner Mr Canham said these three additional lots would affect the setting of his listed building and take away “beautiful views that have been in existence for hundreds of years”.

Calderdale responded that the hardstanding platforms were permitted as a site licence was in force that required the provision of bases for static caravans.

The council also said Mr Canham’s April 2024 objection came too late as it should have been made within four years of the development concerned.

When deciding not to issue the enforcement notice desired by Mr Canham, Calderdale said it applied section 172(1) of the of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which stated.a planning authority must consider whether it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice.

Swift J said Mr Canham contended Calderdale’s decision not to take enforcement action was unlawful because it did not consider section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and failed to take into account the effect on Upper Butterworth End of the later erection of a park home.

He had also alleged apparent bias as the same council officers handled the matter at different stages.

In January 2026 Calderdale considered the matter again and concluded that the park home was a caravan as legally defined and so was lawful permitted development.

The judge said exercise of the power at section 172(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 attracted the operation of other public law requirements, but “the exercise of that power does not attract operation of the principles concerning apparent bias. This is a sufficient reason to dismiss this part of the claimant's challenge.”

Swift J said it was not uncommon for a planning authority to issue an enforcement notice then to reconsider its decision because of further information or new arguments.

“When that happens there will be an advantage if the officer originally involved in the matter continues to be the responsible officer because that will promote continuity and consistency,” he said.

“It may also be an efficient use of finite resources. Any fair-minded and informed observer would see no inherent problem in such arrangements. It is not unreasonable to believe that local authority officers are able when exercising their powers, fairly and properly, to reconsider their initial views considering new matters.

“In this case any possibility that that might not be so is dispelled by the fully reasoned reports written in support the recommendations made in July 2025, January 2026 and March 2026, and the decisions then taken.“

He said Mr Canham submitted that an informed and fair-minded observer would think council decisions on the enforcement question, taken when the judicial review claim was already under way, “were not genuine consideration of new matters and evidence, but only exercises performed to re-state the conclusion the council had previously reached.

Swift J said: “I do not agree. Any fair-minded observer reading the reports prepared in advance of the January and March 2026 decisions would conclude each to be a genuine reconsideration.”

Mark Smulian