Planning Considerations in UK
Planning Permission is required for "Development" of land. The definition of "Development" is "the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, over or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land, "
It is thus important to consider the definition of both "Building" and "Building operation" in this instance regard must be had to the Case law.
Whilst the term "building" has been found to be wide enough to include structures and erections which might not ordinarily be regarded as a building, the courts have decided that if something falls within the definition of a "Caravan" it cannot also be a "Building". The two definitions are mutually exclusive.
The Definition of a "Caravan" is:
"Caravan means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer."
Prior to 1998 there was some debate in the cases as to whether mobile homes were or were not buildings for the purposes of planning. The relevance considerations are the factors of permanence and attachment
The matter was settled in 1998 in the case of Measor v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The case was decided in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and is thus binding on planning inspectors. In it the Judge stated:
"In my judgment, it would conflict with the purpose of the Act and common sense to treat mobile caravans as "buildings" as of right. While I would be wary of holding that, as a matter of law, a "structure" that satisfied the definition of, for example, a Mobile home under s.13(1) of the 1968 Act could never be a building for the purpose of the [Town and Country Planning] Act 1990, it seems to me that by reference to the definitions in the [Caravan Site and Control of Development] Act1960 and the 1968 [Caravan Sites]Act it is clear that in the present case the caravans lacked that degree of permanence and attachment to constitute buildings"
Thus in 1998 whilst the Courts were anxious not to state that a Mobile home or caravan could never be a "building" in general they are not. The Measor principle has been restated and approved in a number of cases since 1998. As recently as 19th June 2002 Mr Justice Forbes in the case of Massingham v Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions stated at paragraphs 15 and 19,
"[15] The judgment in the Measor case restated the approach to the definition of a building for the purposes of development control which had been well settled in previous cases including Barvis Limited v Seceretary of State [1971] In acknowledging that it would be wrong to say that a mobile home could never be a building. In this case I am in no doubt that the mobile home fails the tests of permanence and attachment established by the courts"
"[19] I can see no basis upon which it can be said that the Inspector fell into error when reaching his conclusion to the effect that what had happened on the site constituted neither operational development nor development consisting of a change of use from a caravan to a permanent dwellinghouse"
The facts of the Massingham case are worthy of note. The mobile home concerned was being used as a second home. It was supported by concrete slabs. Although the wheels of the home remained, the axles were supported on blocks, and as Forbes J. pointed out elsewhere in the judgment the fact of connection to mains services is not material in determining whether a caravan is a building.
It is now quite settled law that a m-house would fall within the definition of a Caravan and thus outside the definition of development.
back to top of pageUses of Land
Generally speaking, land in the United Kingdom can be put to a use which either:
- has planning consent (but subject to any conditions attached to such consent)
- is an established use which has become lawful over a number of years, or
- involves agriculture or forestry activities
As a quite separate concept, areas of land in the country are subject to a number of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Conservation Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to name but a few. These are planning policy concepts, against which any planning application for "development" will be assessed, and also in certain circumstances restrict the use and operation of land. There is also other legislation not directly related to planning, which will control the use and activities of land, such as Environmental and Pollution legislation.
As stated above, "development" includes "the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land". Although it is apparent that a m-house would fall within the definition of a caravan and would thus not be a building or operation, it is still necessary to look at the second limb of the definition of "development" and this concerns the making of a material change in the use of land. There follows below a set of circumstances where a m-house could be sited without the need for planning permission.
back to top of page
Incidental use within the curtilage
Within the statutory definition of development there are a number of exceptions that are specifically excluded from the definition. Of particular interest in this case is the fact that "the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such", is specifically excluded. If this situation can be applied to your case, there is no need for planning permission.
The area to be regarded as "the curtilage" will vary widely depending upon the particular site in question but as a general rule there are three relevant characteristics of curtilage:
- it is generally confined to a small area about a building
- there is an intimate association with the land
- it is not necessary for there to be physical enclosure of land within the curtilage but it at least needs to be regarded as part of one enclosure with the house.
The second part of the exception is that the use must be for a purpose "incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse", The test here is that the use should serve the dwellinghouse in some necessary or useful manner. The case law on this is extensive but it is likely that the m-house that is placed within the curtilage should be related to the occupation of the main dwellinghouse.
Houseboat
Importantly, a houseboat is not regarded as a permanent "building" or dwelling. Even when a m-house is used as a houseboat it would still fall within the definition of a caravan. The key factor again is its relative mobility. The fact of semi-permanent fixing to land for utility services and anchorage is not regarded as significant. The classification of a houseboat was considered in 1999 in the case of Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co.Ltd. v Pope Lord Justice Tuckey where it was held that "it is common sense that a boat on a river is not part of the land. A boat, albeit one used as a home, is not of the same genus as real property".
This follows an earlier famous case which came to a different view. This related to a proposed floating heliport on the Thames. Even though it was clearly not a building, it was considered that there was a material change in the use of land. This is because the use of a vessel as a heliport was not a use incidental to the activity of a tidal river, because it involved holding the vessel stationery during flight movements instead of it flying up and down. It was considered that planning legislation is not simply concerned with the narrow use of land but also the wider area affected by an activity. It appears therefore that the question of the change of use of "land" is a grey area but it is nevertheless a possible opportunity.
back to top of page
Incidental to the permitted use of land
Apart from the above exceptions, the siting and use of the m-house must be incidental to the permitted use of that piece of land on which it is sited, if it not going to require planning consent. Thus, for example, the use of a caravan for the storage of feed and shelter may be incidental to a permitted use of agricultural land but if on the other hand it is actually put to use for human habitation then that will constitute a material change in the use of previously agricultural land.
This deals with the relevant specific exceptions to what constitutes "development". There is another category of exception to the broad scope of control.
Deemed planning consent
There are a variety of other cases, operations and changes in use of land which although constitute development, are effectively exempted from the system because permission is deemed to be granted for them. These exemptions are covered by the "General Permitted Development Order 1995" and the most relevant section is part 5 Caravan sites
The use of land for the stationing of a caravan is permitted development under the following circumstances:
Whilst the definition of "caravan" greatly assists where a single m-house is stationed, if a number of residential m-houses are to be used on a single site it may fall within the definition of a caravan site and would require a caravan site license. Notes on guidance
The above comments are intended for guidance purposes only. They are not to be taken as terms or warranties of the contract. It will be appreciated that this area of planning control can be complex and that circumstances can vary widely. We therefore recommend that independent legal advice is sought by any purchaser wishing to know more but take this advice with you if you do.
back to top of page
 |
 |