15 replies to this topic

[Alison]

In the book, you say that the mobile home must be fabricated off-site and brought on to the site in a maximum of two pieces. However, I have been in touch with a local log cabin manufacturer who says that he is already building a cabin for someone in Cambridge ON-site, also under the F2F guidance. Any idea how these people have got around the 2-piece rule? Thanks

[Cornish Gems]

Hi Alison - We cannot see how it can be said that they have got around the 2-piece rule. It may well be that they are just going ahead and doing it. We wish them the best of luck - previous cases show that some people succeed and others do not, but if an enforcement notice is issued and you read all the circumstances, then those who have not pushed the limits too far are more likely to succeed upon appeal than those who have.

Does your local log cabin manufacturer know of any cases where an appeal has been upheld? Can he guarantee that there has never been an enforcement notice which has had to be carried out? How long has he been doing it and what area does he cover?

Don't forget that some of us live in areas where planning officers will do their best to get us off our land. If you feel confident, just go ahead and follow the example set by the Cambridge F2Fers and remember that should you have any problems, if you stick to your guns, you should succeed. We seem to remember a case where the cabin was built on-site, but that the Inspector ruled that as it ended up looking as if it could have been 2 pieces that had been joined together, there was no case to answer.

[Alison]

We will certainly ask him those questions, if we do decide to go ahead and use him. I personally think I'd feel safer doing things the 'proper' way (as dictated by the book). I forsee enough problems ahead without knowingly causing a few more :/

[surreydodger]

Hi Alison,

it's quite acceptable to have your mobile home made on site out of ten thousand pieces or more. It is once it is complete, that it must then be able to comply with the rules.

The magic word is 'capable'.

So long as once your structure is complete, it is capable of being transported or towed, in two pieces, then it complies with regs. It is worth noting that an engineers report may well be comissioned to show that the structure is indeed capable of being moved, so I'd avoid thinking any old thing that looks the part will do.

Good luck

[Wiseowl]

If we are talking about "twin unit caravans" it is not so simple - how it is constructed/assembled is relevant...

1968 CSA:
s13 Twin-unit caravans.

(1) A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which—

(a ) is composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices; and

(b ) is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer),

shall not be treated as not being (or as not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be so moved on a highway when assembled.

(2) For the purposes of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the expression “caravan” shall not include a structure designed or adapted for human habitation which falls within paragraphs (a ) and (b ) of the foregoing subsection if its dimensions when assembled exceed any of the following limits, namely—

(a ) length (exclusive of any drawbar): 60 feet (18.288 metres);

(b ) width: 20 feet (6.096 metres);

(c ) overall height of living accommodation (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level): 10 feet (3.048 metres).

There is thus a "construction" test - namely "composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices", as well as a "mobility test" which is "when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer)", and finally a size test.

The attached "Brackenwood" case quotes (from "Byrne")
“The requirement is that the structure should be composed of not more that two
sections ‘separately constructed’. That means, in my judgement, that it was an
essential part of the construction process in order to bring a structure which would
not otherwise be a caravan, within the definition of that which is deemed to be a
caravan, that there should be two sections separately constructed which are then
designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices. If
the process of construction was not by the creation of two separately constructed
sections then joined together, the terms of the paragraph are not met.”

Attached Files

•  Brackenwood Midhurst.pdf   563.26KB   16 downloads

[Cornish Gems]

Further to the 'Brackenwood' case you should read the case from Lifton North Devon the link below will lead you to it.

Lifton Devon

Which clearly shows the importance of the units appearing as if constructed in two sections.

CG

[surreydodger]

If we are talking about "twin unit caravans" it is not so simple - how it is constructed/assembled is relevant...

I do not see how two different inspectors can come to two completely different conclusions on what would appear to be the same scenario? The Inspector of the Brackenwood case appears to agree that the 'chalet' meets the design principles of a mobile caravan unit so quite why he then decides assembling it from many parts invalidates its function as a caravan/mobile home, is beyond me.

The regs are clear that a mobile twin unit is composed of two seperate sections, capable of being moved in two pieces. It is clear that the two sections must be fitted together by bolts. clamps or other devices. It does not say that you may not create the two sections, and importantly, seperately, on site and then join the two halves together. It is that procedure which I say is permissable with the proviso as per my earlier posting, make sure it meets a structural engineers report of being capable of being moved in two parts.

Slightly off the topic, but worth consideration is this. If someone owns a piece of land to which they are entitled to site a twin-mobile unit, but the access precludes them from bringing onto that site, a twin mobile unit, are they then disqualified from being able to enjoy such given right?

[Cornish Gems]

We felt that the Inspector would be pre-prejudiced, just as soon as we read the words, 'timber dwelling-house'. We also felt that the appellant was not as prepared as he could have been and that the Inspector held the fact that he had brought no supporting evidence or witness against him.

Surreydodger would have made a much better showing and how come the Inspector is implying that the caravan should be in 2 parts? 'Not more than 2 parts' does not mean that it cannot be one part and one part only.

It reminds us of art critics - one can say something nice about a picture and another can pull it to pieces. There do not appear to be any hard and fast rules.

The Brackenwood case also showed up another interesting case in which someone tried to claim CLU after 4 years and the Inspector ruled that despite all that the appellants stated, the 'house' was in fact only a 'caravan' and therefore needed 10 years!

[Cornish Gems]

SD, further to your off topic 'Slightly off the topic, but worth consideration is this. If someone owns a piece of land to which they are entitled to site a twin-mobile unit, but the access precludes them from bringing onto that site, a twin mobile unit, are they then disqualified from being able to enjoy such given right? '

If you read the Lifton Case as above you will see that the manufacturer attended the hearing and the Inspector accepted that the twin unit had to be assembled on site and then joined due to access. So it appears that you can have 100's of pieces as long as the finnished item can be split in two and moved should you need to.

[Wiseowl]

There were two appeals in the Brackenwood case - one (A) involved a timber chalet which the Inspector found was not a mobile home, but a building operation; the second (B ) was for an change of use for the stationing of a mobile home: no-one disputed that (B ) was a mobile home.

The fact that in (A) the Inspector found it to be a building operation was to the appellant's advantage in terms of Ground (d) because he would only have had to show a 4 year breach, not a 10 year breach. In the event, however, the appellant could not even show a 4 year breach.

Neither Brackenwood nor Lifton support the suggestion that a caravan can be assembled from 100s of pieces as long as the finished item can be split into 2 and then moved: this is ignoring the full impact of the construction test, as set out earlier in Byrne.

Thus the Brackenwood decision appears compatible with Lifton, because the facts were found to be different concerning the "construction" test. In Brackenwood the Inspector said " rather than comprising, in the words of the construction test, “…two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices…” (my emphasis), the chalet was assembled from its multitudinous components into its final form".

Whereas in Lifton, it was found that "It was then re-assembled into two sections which were bolted together in the conventional way envisaged by section 13. That would meet the provision in section 13 for the final two sections to be assembled on site".

The two separate sections can be formed elsewhere, or on the site, but they must be formed first (prior to final assembly) somewhere. In Brackenwood two separate sections were not first formed, and then joined, during the construction process at all, whereas they were in Lifton.

[surreydodger]

Yes CG, I felt the Lifton case Inspector took a common sense and pragmatic view. I also agree with your observation of the Brackenwood case in which from the outset, the Inspector used the words, chalet and timber dwelling.

On the whole though, I would still re-assert my opnion that Inspectors get it right 90% of the time. As for LPA officers,, I could not possibly say !!

[che]

On the whole though, I would still re-assert my opnion that Inspectors get it right 90% of the time. As for LPA officers,, I could not possibly say !!

I know the answer to that one

LPAs get it wrong 90% of the time

[surreydodger]

Neither Brackenwood nor Lifton support the suggestion that a caravan can be assembled from 100s of pieces as long as the finished item can be split into 2 and then moved: this is ignoring the full impact of the construction test, as set out earlier in Byrne.

Thus the Brackenwood decision appears compatible with Lifton, because the facts were found to be different concerning the "construction" test. In Brackenwood the Inspector said " rather than comprising, in the words of the construction test, “…two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices…” (my emphasis), the chalet was assembled from its multitudinous components into its final form".

Whereas in Lifton, it was found that "It was then re-assembled into two sections which were bolted together in the conventional way envisaged by section 13. That would meet the provision in section 13 for the final two sections to be assembled on site".

The two separate sections can be formed elsewhere, or on the site, but they must be formed first (prior to final assembly) somewhere. In Brackenwood two separate sections were not first formed, and then joined, during the construction process at all, whereas they were in Lifton.

Hi Wiseowl,

Your contribution above (which I have edited for relevance) does seem to give an answer, within the first paragraph, saying you may not construct a mobile home out of 100's of pieces but in your final paragraph it does.

I believe what you are saying is that a mobile home may indeed be constructed from 100's of pieces, so long as the final act of construction is the joining of two separate pieces. This is certainly how I interpret the regulations.

Upon a more in depth read of the Brackenwood appeal, it seems as though the appellant built the 'mobile home', chalet', timber building' call it what one may, without following the aforesaid procedure. That being the case, then the Inspector would be right in his finding.

The Lifton appeal case shows that building a twin unit mobile home from many (100's even) pieces is a legitimate procedure, so long as the final building act is the moving of the two completed sections to join them together.

That would follow and support what I felt I was saying in my post of that regard.

[Cornish Gems]

Thank you WO and SD - we think you have shown that there is a bit of logic in the difference of the two cases.

Alison, have you contacted your local log cabin manufacturer? Does he assemble two sections on site and then finally join them together? If he does not, then we are concerned about the F2Fers in Cambridge and are heartfully glad we are not in their shoes. Do you happen to know whether they know of the existence of this support forum?

[Groundhog]

A little forward planning when constructing a timber cabin to ensure it can be transported,ie less than 13ft or finaly bolted together in 2 halves will meet the critiria

[Romany]

I still don't get it. How can one transport a 60ft long, 20ft wide, 10ft high construction even when split into 2 parts?! Split lengthways, it's still 60ft long... split sideways it's still 20ft wide by 30ft, average lorry 8ft wide by 20-30ft.... confusion reigns !!!!

Romany