Hammond v Horsham DC
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1989) 58 PCR 410-415(6)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: QBD 26 April 1989. The appellant Hammond (H) had bought land at Cousins Copse, Slinfold in 1987 and had erected a mobile home on the site. The unit came in two halves for bolting together but, H did not have the bolts. The unit therefore, was fitted together as closely as possible leaving a gap of 2.5cm between the two halves. The unit had been designed to meet the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s13 and in particular not to exceed 6.096m (20ft) in width. H`s construction of the mobile home resulted in its width exceeding this by 2.4cm. The home was used by H and his family for residential purposes. The planning officer for Horsham DC (HDC) measured the overall dimensions to determine if the unit was a caravan. Proceedings were then taken against H for breach of the enforcement notice and he was convicted. H appealed, stating that since the unit was wider than the 1968 Act it could not be regarded as a caravan. HDC argued that Parliament would not have intended a structure t| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42043 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 34321-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
QBD 26 April 1989. The appellant Hammond (H) had bought land at Cousins Copse, Slinfold in 1987 and had erected a mobile home on the site. The unit came in two halves for bolting together but, H did not have the bolts. The unit therefore, was fitted together as closely as possible leaving a gap of 2.5cm between the two halves. The unit had been designed to meet the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 s13 and in particular not to exceed 6.096m (20ft) in width. H`s construction of the mobile home resulted in its width exceeding this by 2.4cm. The home was used by H and his family for residential purposes. The planning officer for Horsham DC (HDC) measured the overall dimensions to determine if the unit was a caravan. Proceedings were then taken against H for breach of the enforcement notice and he was convicted. H appealed, stating that since the unit was wider than the 1968 Act it could not be regarded as a caravan. HDC argued that Parliament would not have intended a structure t