He thinks this is a caravan…

[HOJ]

Interesting debate, I designed some glamping pods a few years ago, after discussions with our local planners, we would have not needed planning if they were built offsite and transported in to place, but as they were going to build them on site we needed full planning, for exactly the same design!

I quote the planners response:

"We need to be satisfied that the Caravan Act is complied with and therefore I need to be assured that;

1. Is it composed of not more than two sections, separately constructed and designed to be assembled on site by means of bolts, clamps and other devices.

2. Is when assembled, it is physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another.

and 3. the length does not exceed 20m and width of 6.8m and an overall height of 3.05m."

We did apply for planning in this case, which was granted and 3 more have been built under a subsequent planning application.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I have some sympathy with the planners as they are balancing the right of one property owner to do as they wish with ensuring in doing so it doesn’t ruin the ability of others to enjoy their property. There are different opinions and can be unreasonable parties on both sides of the consideration.

I guess if a neighbour decided to build a safe monstrosity that put your house in permanent shade you’d want the planners to have the powers to stop it?

You have no right to light…. I actually had a neighbour build over one of our windows.

 

[Blackswanwood]

You have no right to light…. I actually had a neighbour build over one of our windows.

Right to light (which you can acquire as a prescribed right) is different to your whole property being permanently placed in shade. It may be a less than perfect example to illustrate the point but I’d maintain that restricting planning regulations to simply safety issues wouldn’t be a good idea.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I was meaning the higher echelons of the council, not the day to day staff.
Although there are plenty of exceptions, and while im quite sure many are fine and down to earth folk, it is a known fact that councils are overly officious

It is a characteristic of the public sector - certainly those I observed over 20 years from the inside.

The pubic sector is inherently risk averse - any departure from agreed processes, can draw public criticism undermining decisions made.

To avoid censure and preserve a career trajectory it is more important (or at least as important) to avoid criticism as actually get anything done.

A personal example a few weeks after joining - a contract that was scheduled to be delivered by my new employer was compromised by the failure of a subcontractor. Service delivery being my primary concern, I committed the organisation to several £1000 to ensure we delivered.

In the private sector I would expect to be congratulated (and rewarded). The public sector noted I had substantially exceeded my delegated authority (then zero) and could be fired if repeated.

 

[spanner48]

In law there seems to be little difference between caravan and mobile home.

The common characteristic and definition seems to be a structure which is designed or adapted for human habitation and is capable of being moved from one place to another.

Sheds fail, usually missing cookers, beds, taps etc, although they can normally be moved - if they don't fall apart in the process!

I suspect much of this becomes important due to tax and VAT legislation - VAT on caravans is 20%, on mobile homes 5%, possible capital gains tax normally payable on property that is not your main residence, liability for council tax etc.

Fertile ground for tax lawyers!

Not Tax: PLANNING.

Sheds are subject to the Town & Country Planning Act 1948. Caravans are ONLY subject to the Caravans Act 1968; they are outwith planning constraints. A caravan is designated as: a structure that is designed for human residence and can be transported by road.

My garden is subject to a Restrictive Covenant which stipulates :no building of any sort, whether permanent or temporary

But a caravan is OK. So I can "do a Cameron". It just needs no permanent service connections [electricity, water, sewage etc.]; but temporary ones are OK. And - preferably - wheels

 

[highwood122]

planning law is an absolute shambles

 

[Chubber]

At first I wasn't going to comment (as you get older time becomes more valuable) , but decided to ask the question "Why didn't he ask the builder to stick a couple of 4 x 4s underneath with a wheel on each end when it was lifted up...?"

 

[okeydokey]

I thought caravans had wheels, even the huge mobile homes on holiday parks have wheels.
Even if this structure had wheels it cannot be wheeled anywhere - but what do I know!
Most sheds you buy have timber floors and have no provision for fixing to the ground so maybe all sheds should be renamed as caravans?

 

[duke]

This really takes the cake!

 

[TRITON]

So do people generally side with the council on this, or the bloke?
I must admit, it seems like a shed to me, and it's clearly not a conventional caravan. I would have said the spirit of the 'law' is don't put structures where they shouldn't be and I think that is what people should generally adhere to? Otherwise... what's the point? Thoughts?

Its a shed all right, but it's been built to caravan regulations. So while it's a shed, it looks like a shed, it does shedy things like store your lawnmower and collection of slowly rusting garden tools, it is to the letter of the law, a caravan.

I suppose thats really sticking it to the man. Well done that builder

It's so nice that loopholes aren't just for corrupt politicians and their donors

 

[cerro]

Add some dummy wheels and a tow bar

 

[cerro]

Fifty years ago we had a shop and the man used to visit regularly knifes had to have plastic handles ect, we had a toilet in the passage all concrete and he said we had to have a light in it so we put a storm lantern on the window sill and it passed.

After finishing my commando training just outside Plymouth in a camp (dusty roads) as a recruit we were taken into storehouse barracks by lorry Immaculate in best blue sand was lined up for an inspection I got seven days 10A for having dust in the welts of my boots

 

[TomGW]

The issue isn't whether or not it's a 'caravan'. The question is, "is it operational development"? Development is categorised as, operational development, change of use, or, engineering works. In this case the critical question is, is it operational development? The test is normally, "has this required work of construction normally carried as part of a building operation"?
If the shed is a box that arrived on the site in its present form, then it's not a building and not operational development. If it was assembled on site then it's likely to fail that test. Simple as that.
It's not a change of use, as (I'm assuming) it's used as incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling and within the curtilage of the dwelling. It's not an engineering operation (bridge, road etc).
The caravan argument is correct only insofar that a caravan, within the curtilage of a dwelling, used incidental to the dwelling is clearly not operational development nor a change of use and therefore not development at all.
Good luck to him but he needs to be able to prove that no "operational development" was involved in its appearance on his site. If it arrived in bits and was 'built' on site he is most likely to fail.

 

[artie]

If the shed is a box that arrived on the site in its present form, then it's not a building and not operational development. If it was assembled on site then it's likely to fail that test.

Are not most sheds assembled on site?

 

[spanner48]

The issue isn't whether or not it's a 'caravan'. The question is, "is it operational development"? Development is categorised as, operational development, change of use, or, engineering works. In this case the critical question is, is it operational development? The test is normally, "has this required work of construction normally carried as part of a building operation"?
If the shed is a box that arrived on the site in its present form, then it's not a building and not operational development. If it was assembled on site then it's likely to fail that test. Simple as that.
It's not a change of use, as (I'm assuming) it's used as incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling and within the curtilage of the dwelling. It's not an engineering operation (bridge, road etc).
The caravan argument is correct only insofar that a caravan, within the curtilage of a dwelling, used incidental to the dwelling is clearly not operational development nor a change of use and therefore not development at all.
Good luck to him but he needs to be able to prove that no "operational development" was involved in its appearance on his site. If it arrived in bits and was 'built' on site he is most likely to fail.

NO. That is part of PLANNING law: "Operational development refers to the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over or under land. In simpler terms, it encompasses any activity that alters the physical or functional characteristics of land or buildings. Planning Permission is required for operational development."

If whatever it is is accepted to be a caravan, none of this applies.

 

[Qwercus]

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2...structure-hires-crane-to-prove-its-not-a-shed

Bloke puts a shed outside his house and says “it’s a caravan”

What are people like.

Someone got round the "wheeled vehicle" thing in an interesting way. A flatbed 4 wheeled farm cart - like the traditional hay cart - was buried to axle depth by digging two parallel trenches and towing the cart into them. The flatbed then became the base for a substantial wooden shed/cabin to be constructed on it.
This was on privately owned woodland and would be difficult to replicate in a suburban garden.
This was featured by Kevin McCloud in a Property programme, I don't think it was Grand Designs, more a quirky structures thing, Hobbit Houses etc.

 

[The Bear]

The issue isn't whether or not it's a 'caravan'. The question is, "is it operational development"? Development is categorised as, operational development, change of use, or, engineering works. In this case the critical question is, is it operational development? The test is normally, "has this required work of construction normally carried as part of a building operation"?
If the shed is a box that arrived on the site in its present form, then it's not a building and not operational development. If it was assembled on site then it's likely to fail that test. Simple as that.
It's not a change of use, as (I'm assuming) it's used as incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling and within the curtilage of the dwelling. It's not an engineering operation (bridge, road etc).
The caravan argument is correct only insofar that a caravan, within the curtilage of a dwelling, used incidental to the dwelling is clearly not operational development nor a change of use and therefore not development at all.
Good luck to him but he needs to be able to prove that no "operational development" was involved in its appearance on his site. If it arrived in bits and was 'built' on site he is most likely to fail.

A few people locally have used the caravan rules to put "buildings" in the front of houses where there is no chance of planning permission and permitted development does not apply. One that I know of is a pool house, sited on screw piles, with water, electricity and drainage connected. All this clearly stated when they applied for a certificate of lawful development prior to build. This was then built on site, not transported in.

Mark