Terence Arthur James Moore v Secretary of State for the Environment and New Forest District Council [1998] EWCA Civ 235
Moore 1998 is an important Court of Appeal case on holiday accommodation and the meaning of a dwellinghouse. Ten self-contained units at Ladycross Lodge in the New Forest were commercially let for holidays, including weekend and mid-week breaks.
The Court held that they did not stop being single dwellinghouses merely because nobody occupied them as a permanent home and they were managed together as a holiday-letting business.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [1998] EWCA Civ 235; [1998] 2 PLR 65; (1999) 77 P&CR 114
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 12th February 1998
- Judge
- Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Pill and Lord Justice Thorpe
- Case number
- QBCOF 97/0017 CMS4
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What happened at Ladycross Lodge
Ladycross Lodge was a large Edwardian country house with extensive grounds and outbuildings near Beaulieu in the New Forest.
After acquiring the property in 1985, the owners converted parts of the outbuildings into ten self-contained units. Each had the facilities needed for daily life, including living and sleeping space, kitchen, bathroom and WC.
The units were commercially let to the public for short holidays. They were managed as one business, with cleaning at changeovers, linen and optional services.
The enforcement dispute concerned the old four-year rule
New Forest District Council served an enforcement notice in May 1995 alleging a change from residential use to a mixed residential and holiday-accommodation use.
The timing mattered because the old section 171B(2) gave a four-year immunity period where a breach consisted in a change of use of a building to use as a single dwellinghouse.
Nine of the ten units had been in their holiday use for more than four years. If each unit was being used as a single dwellinghouse, the enforcement notice was too late.
The Inspector treated the ten units as one holiday planning unit
The Inspector accepted that the units had the physical attributes of self-contained dwellings. However, he considered that nobody really lived in them because they were used for short holidays rather than as long-term homes.
He also treated the main house and the ten holiday cottages as one planning unit managed as a single commercial enterprise.
The Secretary of State adopted that reasoning and concluded that the ten-year enforcement period applied instead.
The planning-unit analysis was the wrong starting point
The Court of Appeal relied on Van Dyck v Secretary of State. Where the issue is whether separate parts of a building have become single dwellinghouses, the planning-unit doctrine does not answer the statutory question.
In this case the relevant question was whether each self-contained unit was being used as a single dwellinghouse for section 171B(2).
The fact that the owners marketed and managed all ten units together did not merge the physical dwellings into one planning unit for that purpose.
A dwellinghouse does not have to be a permanent home
The more important error was the Inspector’s understanding of dwellinghouse.
Lord Justice Nourse approved the approach in Gravesham. The distinctive characteristic is the ability to provide the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence.
There is no legal requirement that a building must be occupied as somebody’s permanent home before it can be a dwellinghouse.
A second home, holiday cottage, time-share or other dwelling occupied intermittently can still retain the character of a dwellinghouse.
Commercial holiday letting did not automatically change that character
The units did not cease to be single dwellinghouses merely because they were let commercially to a succession of holidaymakers.
The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State had applied the wrong legal test. On the findings in this particular case, the ten units were being used as ten single dwellinghouses for the purposes of the historic enforcement time limit.
The appeal was therefore allowed and the Secretary of State’s decision was remitted.
Moore 1998 does not mean every holiday let remains C3
This is the most important warning when using the case today.
Moore 1998 concerned whether the ten units were single dwellinghouses for the historic section 171B(2) enforcement rule. It rejected the idea that holiday occupation automatically prevents dwellinghouse status.
It did not establish that commercial holiday letting can never amount to a material change of use from a dwellinghouse.
The later Court of Appeal decision in Moore v Secretary of State [2012] EWCA Civ 1202 makes that distinction explicit.
The enforcement time-limit point is now historic in England
The four-year enforcement rule discussed in Moore 1998 is no longer the ordinary English rule for current breaches. From 25th April 2024, the ordinary enforcement period for operational development and material changes of use is ten years, subject to transitional protection for older breaches.
The case nevertheless remains highly relevant to the meaning of dwellinghouse and to older enforcement cases.
Read the full Moore 1998 judgment
The approved Court of Appeal transcript is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
For current practice, see our guide to serviced accommodation, Airbnb and short-term lets.
Moore 1998 Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026