Cartledge v The Scottish Ministers [2011] ScotCS CSIH_23 (18 March 2011)
The 1972 planning permission, by incorporating the docqueted plan, limited the number and location of caravans to those shown on the plan. The planning authority did not leave the number and location of caravans to the licensing authority. The respondent has no right to develop area 4 or to site more than 64 caravans as per the plan. The certificate of lawful use correctly defined the respondent's rights.
- Citation
- [2011] ScotCS CSIH_23
- Parties
- Appellant and Respondent: Alan Cartledge; Reclaimers and Second Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 18 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Decision on Appeal From Lord Ordinary
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; respondent's appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Planning Permission, Caravan Site Licensing, Certificate of Lawful Use, Relationship Between Planning and Licensing Regimes
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alan Cartledge
Appellant and Respondent
The Scottish Ministers
Reclaimers and Second Respondents
Procedural Posture
Appeal (reclaiming Motion) / Decision on Appeal From Lord Ordinary
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the number and location of caravans permitted on the site is governed by the planning permission or the site licence
- 2 Whether the 1972 planning permission incorporated the plan as a prescriptive limitation on caravan numbers and locations
- 3 Whether area 4 of the site was included in the planning permission for caravan siting
Ratio Decidendi
The 1972 planning permission, by incorporating the docqueted plan, limited the number and location of caravans to those shown on the plan. The planning authority did not leave the number and location of caravans to the licensing authority. The respondent has no right to develop area 4 or to site more than 64 caravans as per the plan. The certificate of lawful use correctly defined the respondent's rights.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; respondent's appeal refused
Orders
- Reclaiming motion allowed
- Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment