There has been a discussion about this very topic within the South West Officers Group, and also I think on the NAPE discussion forum, so it has been well chewed over. I was most convinced by the argument that these should be considered development, even if they are not fixed to the ground, as they have a degree of permanence and cannot be easily moved. The argument is that they are 'other operations' which come under s55. I have copied out something below that I have come across, and have some more stuff if you want to email me: andy.birchley@gloucester.gov.uk The term “building” in s.336(1) of the Act has a wide definition which includes “any structure or erection”. This description has been interpreted by the courts to include structures which would not ordinarily be described as buildings. The Council did not direct itself correctly in law on the issue of permanence. This has to be construed in terms of significance in the planning context. The units were permanently in their field and there was no limit on the length of time they would remain there. The Council had placed reliance on the fact that each unit was prefabricated and easily assembled so its construction was not an operation “normally undertaken by a builder” (s.55(1A)(d)). However, s.55(1A) is inclusive: it is not intended to be an exhaustive definition of “building operations”. In any event, the works carried out to construct and install the units were capable of coming within s.55(1A)(d). The Council failed to consider the application of that section. The residual category in s.55(1), namely, “other operations” is not limited to building, engineering or mining operations. In conclusion, the Council had misdirected itself in law in the application of s.55 to the poultry units.
