PlanningNotice of grant of planning permission for permanent siting of caravan - condition purporting to make consent temporary for 'F' years - court unable to rectify condition and permission of no effectFisher v Wychavon District Council: CA (Peter Gibson and Schiemann LJJ and Maurice Kay J): 9 November 2000Part I of a notice of grant of planning permission sent by the council to the claimant described the development to which it related as 'permanent siting of a residential caravan'.

In pt II permission was granted to carry out the development in pt I subject to, among other things, condition (i) which required that 'the uses authorised shall be discontinued and all works required for the reinstatement of the land to its former use and condition shall be carried out no 'later than F years [sic] from the date of this permission'.

The reason for that condition was 'to enable the local planning authority to monitor the effects of the proposal on the environment'.

The claimant applied for a declaration as to the meaning of the notice.

The judge found that condition (i) was void but not severable from the grant, so the planning permission was to no effect.

The claimant appealed, contending that since the planning permission sought was for a permanent siting condition (i) was void or ultra vires.

The council cross-appealed, contending that condition (i) should be construed so as to limit planning permission to five years or that it should be rectified to provide that effect.Jeremy Cahill (instructed by Hulme & Co, Worcester) for the claimant.

David Park ( instructed by the head of legal services, Wychavon District Council, Pershore) for the council.Held, dismissing the appeal and the cross-appeal, that it was doubtful whether the equitable remedy of rectification, although available in respect of some unilateral transactions, was in principle available in respect of a notification of planning consent; that where there was an intention discernible from the notice of grant of planning permission itself that there should only be a temporary consent, but one could not say for how long, the court could not strike out all references to a temporary consent so as to leave a permanent consent; and that, consequently, the permission said to be for the permanent siting of a residential caravan had no effect.