residential caravans - again!!!! - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - This week
residential caravans - again!!!!
Does anyone have any caselaw which would be useful to this case. Man buys approx 15 acres in AONB . Puts in prior notif for ag bldg which land agent supported based on a business plan. Building work commences, 2 mobile homes arrive for family. Building work not being carried out totally by owner , he is under the impression that he has pd rights from GPDO Part 5 which refers back to Caravan Act 1960 Sch 9 First Schedule " Building and engineering sites" ,which states that a site licence shall not be required for use of land as caravan site which forms part of land on which building or engineering works are being carried out ....if that use is for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations. THe LPA allowed him 6 months over the summer to substantially complete the building which he has now done and served an EN to remove the caravans. He has since submitted another appn for small extension to the ag blg and hardstanding and said he will continue to submit applications and can therefore take advantage of pd rights. Does anyone have any case law examples which would illustrate the scope of this part of the caravan act and define what building or engineering operations it relates to?
This is a questionable area of law, with some Inspectors taking a hard line and others not. In this case which is obviously an attempt to avoid the requirements of planning, I would expect an inspector to take the hard line. I am not aware of any stated cases in these circumstances although there are a number of appeal decisions in DC Practice. In North Cornwall DC 15/10/97 (DCS No.045-375-644) action was taken against two mobile homes which may be relevant in your case. If there is a break in operations, the caravans will cease to be permitted development. Neither are they permitted development whilst an application is being considered. They will only be permitted development where an approved operation is being implemented and works are ongoing.
Morning Charlotte! In a similar situation when I was a young and inexperienced Enforcement Officer in the Lake District I sought the advice of our Solicitor. My question was over the interpretation of the word 'employed'. I thought that this would require some sort of payment passing between an employer and an employee. He wisely pointed out that self-employment would not fit my interpretation ... but even so questioned whether the builder's wife and children were also on site in connection with the said operations. In that instance we never took action because the applied for, and were granted, a temporary permission. Mike
As a enforcement officer in a previous life would not the solution be that the as the allowance is to carry out permitted woks as the works have been done you continue to enforce against him, if he chooses to submit a further application whether prior approval or not( he can only use prior approval if established the building is reasonably required) continue to enforce, as you don’t have to wait for the outcome of a application especially in cases like this where it is a clear try on, if you don’t do this could he not eventually claim under the 4 year rule.
I echo Mike's observations. I would have to say however that unless the family members are all employed in the building operations then they do not fall within the scope "persons employed in connection with the said operations" as specified in the schedule and therefore there is no actual or implied consent for them to be resident on the land.
Thankyou all for comments v useful. When I first met the owner of the land he produced a book he had purchased called "From Field to Farm" which basically gives advice on how to get around the planning system and establish a residential unit in open countryside. Fingers crossed for an Inspector to take a hard line. Regards to all Charlotte Parkinson
Hi Charlotte, the Field to Farm booklet is more concerned with explaining the planning regulations that exist in relation to agricultural dwellings and practices. It's principle aim is to demonstrate that there is a perfectly legitimate way to create a farming business and dwelling. Unfortunately, there will always be the errant person who will try to take advantage of the planning regulations for the benefit of their own well-being as opposed to the intent of the F2F book and regulations. This particular application seems doomed to failure for if the farming practice does not meet the conditions as set down by PPS7, then they will not gain the required permission to carry on living there. Of course, if they then go on to build up a perfectly legitimate agricultural business requiring living accomodation on site, then no harm has been done either.
Enforcement based on lack of necessity seems justified. Re: Martin's point about the 4 year rule, time spent in occupation under legitimate PD rights would not be able to contribute towards a period of continuous breach for establishing immunity (make sure you keep the letters where your applicant makes these claims, then use them against him), but don't let that put you off robust action in the meanwhile. Condition A2 (4) of Pt 6 rights states that "Development consisting of the significant extension or the significant alteration of a building may only be carried out once by virtue of Class A(a)." so repeat applications cannot be used to prolong this process. After one Class A(a) extension he needs planning permission, which can be refused if need cannot be shown. He then has to leave the site.
thankyou for most recent comments and appeal decision which will be v useful as the case has been scheduled for informal hearing in October 2011. I will post the outcome for anyone interested.
The Inspector upheld the appeal based on the fact that the small lean to building he had applied for when he got wind of us serving the Notic e ( I think to prolong his pd rights) wasnt yet complete so he was within his pd right! Its definitely a way around the regs, he is making more progress setting up his farm enterprise now , he just kept changing his mind about what he was going to do it made us think he wasnt serious about the business. I live on a working farm so i did understand what he was up against. Planning Magazine asked me for a copy of the appeal decision letter so watch out for it in there at some stage.
Thank you for that Charlotte. It is difficult to distinguish the genuine from those who try to use the rules for no more than financial gain. I am strictly on the side of creating genuine smallholdings producing both a viable income whilst turning out honourable and quality produce on a high animal welfare basis. Telling who is who is not easy., however I do think such enterprises should be shown and given support by planning bodies and helped rather than hindered. In the same manner and to ensure the well intentioned are not wilfully maligned with those of less than honourable intent, planners should be given the right kind of help, information and resources to come to bear upon the disingenuous. Unfortunately I am not a subscriber of Planning Magazine but I suspect the case will pass me by other means.