Babbage v North Norfolk District Council: CA 1990

The court considered the extent of its ability to insert conditions into caravan site agreements under the 1960 Act. The site licence contained two relevant conditions. One required that no caravan should be occupied between November 1 and March 19. The second required that all caravans should be removed prior to 1 November and none placed before March 20. Section 5(1) permitted conditions:
‘(a) for restricting the occasions on which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation . .
(d) for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes.’
Held: Applying authority, the court held that section 5 did not permit conditions which were imposed for purely planning reasons. The condition requiring removal could not be justified under either section 5(1)(a) or (d). It was imposed as a planning consideration.


[1990] 1 EGLR 202


Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 5


England and Wales


CitedTaylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .

Cited by:

CitedBrightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others QBD 30-Oct-2008
The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.277382