Field to Farm
Sign In
Create Account
This is regarding case law against siting a caravan or mobile home when undertaking permitted development engineering works. It is part of a reply I have had from my planning office in response to my declaration that I would be siting a caravan now.
Quote-
The relevant legislation is, as you state the Caravan sites and Control of Development Act 1960, but not part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO). For your guidance this part of the GPDO would allow, for example, builders site huts and plant required in connection with a construction project but does not allow a residential use. There is however a separate category of permitted development under Part 5 of the GPDO that could allow occupation of a caravan by mobile workforces and by self-builders and this refers to and relates to the above mentioned 1960 caravan sites and control of development Act.
It is important to understand that the above legislation allows a caravan to be stationed temporarily to accommodate a worker on a site where building or engineering works are in operation for which permission has been granted and used for the accommodation of those employed on the operations. A main source of contention in respect of this legislation, as set out in the Development Control Practice (DCP) is wheter a caravan is genuinely "required in connection with" operations. In this connection DCP identifies the following cases as relevant: (for ease of reference I have taken the following quotes direct from DCP).
1. The retention of a mobile home at a nursery was rejected after an inspector decided that it was not permitted under Class A (Part 5 GPDO). The appellants stated that they were granted planning permission in 2001 and 2003 for engineering works in connection with the commercial nursery which included the erection of polytunnels and the creation of a car parking area. They claimed that these works were underway and the mobile home provided accommodation until they were complete. Consequently they asserted that siting of a mobile home complied with the relevant provisions of the GPDO which allowed a caravan to be temporarily stationed on land provided it was occupied by a person who was involved in carrying out the building works on the site. However the inspector noted that the appellants had claimed that they needed to live at the nursery to provide on site management. In his opinion, the GPDO id not sanction the stationing of a mobile home that simultaneously provided accommodation for a person or persons operating a business on the land while undertaking a modicum of building operations. The mobile home looked very similar to a bungalow and did not have the appearance or character of a temporary home for a worker undertaking short term building work he decided. Consequently its siting was not permitted under the order. (Allerdale 12/1/06)
2. A token start of digging foundations for an approved upon which little progress had otherwise been made, was held not to constitute building works for the purpose of a permitted development caravan (Colwyn BC 19/11/92 100-027-839).
3. Enforcement action was taken against a mobile home located by a barn for which planning permission had been given for renovation. A local authority conceded, using Adams and Shadey, that the stationing of the mobile home was permitted during the renovation period. An inspector felt that any such rights cased when the mobile home evolved into a permanent dwellinghouse. He also rejected an assertion that Part 4A rights were applicable (Epping Forest DC 10/3/99 DCS No.057-171-098).
4. An enforcement notice required the removal of a caravan. An appellant claimed that it was used whilst a house was being constructed such that it was permitted development. However whilst the foundations had been laid, no other work had commenced for 20 months. This constituted a cessation of the works such that the keeping of the caravan on the site amounted to storage and the appeal under ground (
failed (Lancaster City Council 18/1/99 DCS No.053-760-748). 5. A barn conversion was being undertaken and two caravans were sited for occupation by the appellant. There had been a lapse in work at the site for financial reasons, and an inspector judged that no operations were being carried out and that the caravans were not being used solely for the accommodation of those employed in connection with the operation. An enforcement notice was upheld, but 18 months given for compliance (Arun DC 8/1/82).
6. An enforcement notice alleged that a caravan at a farm was unauthorised. It was argued that the van was required in connection with works to agricultural buildings on the site. An inspector noted the Part 5 of the GPDO referred to operations which are being carried out and this suggested an on-going activity. In fact the works had been carried out spasmodically and over seven years. In addition the scale of the works was so small that the appellant could not have been employed in connection. In the event it was found that the caravan had been in breach of planning control for more than ten years and the notice was quashed with an LDC being granted (West Lindsey DC 28/7/02 DCS No. 037-961-829).
Back to top
