A certificate of lawfulness application for Rainbolts Hill Farm in Roch, Pembrokeshire, has been refused by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority (PCNPA), after the site’s owners sought to establish that its seasonal camping and touring operation had been in continuous use for at least 10 years.
Nick Neumann and his wife, through planning agent Hayston Developments & Planning Ltd, submitted the application for the farm, which Neumann purchased in 2019. The application sought to demonstrate that the campsite had operated lawfully through a continuous period of use dating back to 1972.
According to the application, Rainbolts Hill Farm operated as a seasonal camping and touring site between April and October, with as many as 50 pitches available each day. The application relied on the site’s historic use and evidence intended to establish that the operation had continued for the required period without enforcement action.
A certificate of lawfulness is a planning mechanism used to establish whether an existing or proposed use or development is lawful based on the evidence provided. In this case, PCNPA officers determined that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate the necessary continuous period of use.
An officer report recommending refusal stated: “For the operation of the site as described to be considered lawful, there must have been a breach of planning control against which the LPA could have taken enforcement action at any time throughout a continuous and uninterrupted 10-year period between when the use began in 1972 up until the present day, and that it did not take any such action.
“The requisite period does not have to be the previous 10 years immediately prior to the application being submitted. However, it is important that if the period is more historic, there cannot have been any abandonment of the use subsequently, and it must also be in operation today (at the time the application was made).”
The authority said it was satisfied that there appeared to have been no abandonment of the campsite, but identified uncertainty over whether the operation could be demonstrated to have constituted a continuous and uninterrupted breach of planning control for a qualifying 10-year period.
According to Nation.Cymru, the report also noted that while the application contained substantial information, some areas lacked sufficient detail concerning what had taken place, when activities occurred and how frequently they took place.
It concluded: “In conclusion, the local planning authority considers that, on the required balance of probabilities, a satisfactory case has not been made to support the overall contention that the site is in lawful use as described.”
Following the refusal, Cllr Neumann said there had been no complaints or enforcement action concerning the campsite and described the application as an effort to address an issue that predated his ownership.
“When we bought Rainbolts Hill in 2019 we inherited a legacy issue with the campsite not having planning permission even though the campsite having a 50-plus year history of accommodating campers, and never having any enforcement notices served, which has been evidenced by previous owners.
“What’s strange was PCNPA approved the construction of a large facilities building to include toilets, showers, laundry and games room in 2005 specifically for a campsite. We have recently met with PCNPA officers to understand their concerns and will be resubmitting a revised certificate of lawfulness with further robust evidence in due course.
“We are merely trying to regularise this historic issue that we have inherited and will be working constructively with PCNPA officers to do so.”
For campground and outdoor hospitality operators, the case highlights the importance of maintaining detailed historical records when seeking to establish the lawful status of a long-running operation.
Evidence concerning dates of operation, pitch numbers, seasonal patterns and continuity of use can be significant in demonstrating that a qualifying period has been met. The decision also illustrates that the absence of previous enforcement action does not, by itself, establish lawful use, and that planning authorities may require evidence capable of demonstrating the relevant history on the balance of probabilities.
