A caravan site has won a legal battle with the council after a dispute over “unreasonable behaviour”.
Somerset Council has been ordered to cover the legal costs of Cornish Farm Touring Park after a government planning inspector found that the authority acted unreasonably in rejecting a planning application.
The touring park near the M5 on the outskirts of Taunton sought permission in June 2025 to officially become a caravan park.
When the council turned down the application, the site’s operator appealed, which led to a public inquiry.
Inspector Roy Curnow ruled in favour of the park and found that the council must pay costs due to “unreasonable behaviour” throughout the appeals process.
The precise sum has yet to be determined.
Sovereign Park Homes Estates Ltd owns the site.
It was granted planning permission in 2000 allowing up to 25 pitches to be in use at any given time.
A caravan site has won a legal battle with the council after a dispute over ‘unreasonable behaviour’
|
That original consent also stipulated that occupancy was restricted to a maximum of 28 consecutive days.
However, Somerset Council itself acknowledged that this occupation limit had become “no longer enforceable” and had been “continuously breached for a period of 10 years”.
During a visit to the site on June 10, Mr Curnow observed that a map displayed in reception showed 48 pitches, nearly double the original allowance.
He said: “There is no control on either the length of time that a caravan might be sited on the land, nor on the type of caravan that might be used.”
Somerset Council has been ordered to cover the legal costs of Cornish Farm Touring Park
|
The council had argued during the hearing that permitting a “greater year-round presence” of caravans would alter the area’s character and generate additional traffic.
Mr Curnow rejected this reasoning outright, stating: “There are simply no restrictions on using caravans on the land for residential purposes.”
The character effects cited by the council could therefore occur regardless, he concluded, meaning there would be no material change.
Mr Curnow’s costs order stemmed from what he described as “unreasonable behaviour leading to unnecessary expense”.
This included the council’s failure to reach a “timely and correct decision” on the application.
The inspector was equally damning in his assessment of the authority’s substantive case, ruling that its arguments concerning the duration of occupancies were “fundamentally flawed and not substantiated”.
The total bill facing Somerset Council remains unknown, with the exact amount of costs awarded to the park’s owners still to be confirmed.
Somerset Council has been approached for comment.