The appeal in TALLINGTON LAKES LTD v SOUTH KESTEVEN DC (2024) EWCA Civ 811 concerned the proper interpretation and application of the CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENTS ACT 1960 (the 1960 Act). The issue was as to the payment of an annual site licence fee.
Section 3 provides for the making of an application for a site licence. It confers powers on a local authority for the area where the land is situated to grant such licences. Section 5 provides powers for a local authority to attach conditions to a site licence. A person aggrieved by the conditions may appeal to the FTT within 28 days of the date of issue of a licence. Section 8 provides power for a local authority to alter the conditions attached to a site licence (whether by variation or cancellation of the existing conditions). A person aggrieved by any alteration of the conditions may appeal within 28 days to the FTT.
Section 5A of the 1960 Act provides powers for a local authority in England to charge a fee in respect of what is called a relevant protected site. The power is conferred by subsection 5A(1) and the definition of a relevant protected site is contained in subsection 5A(2).
The Court of Appeal found that it was the appellant who was the “occupier” of the site. Lewis LJ said:-
“36. …the appellant is the registered proprietor of the freehold title to the land. It is entitled by virtue of that estate to possession of the land. Secondly, the question then become whether Lakes Leisure Ltd has a lease of the land or simply a licence to occupy. If it is a licence, Lakes Leisure Ltd would not be occupying pursuant to an estate or interest in land (and it would not be the occupier for the purposes of section 1) and the appellant would remain the occupier for the purposes of section 1. In brief summary, if an agreement confers exclusive possession at a rent, that will normally give rise to a lease (unless the relationship is explained by the existence of some other relationship). See the speech of Lord Templeman, with whom the other Law Lords agreed at p.818C-E in Street v Mountford. The issue involves analysing the management and trading licence agreement and determining what rights were conferred by that agreement. That depends on what a reasonable person, having all the …
The Court of Appeal then addressed what was the relevant protected site. The licence fee was payable under Section 5A of the Act as the Council had issue a site licence on request of a relevant protected site in their area.