Green Belt enforcement appeal dismissed

Sam Vowles sets out the circumstances in which an appeal against the removal of a residential structure was rejected by the Planning Inspectorate.

The appeal concerned an enforcement notice issued by Runnymede Council requiring the removal of a residential structure in the Green Belt. The Appellants originally claimed the structure was a caravan but withdrew that contention at the start of the inquiry.

The Appellants relied on paragraph 154(g) of the NPPF, arguing that the Appeal Development represented redevelopment of previously developed land. The Appellants argued that the presence of a permanent outbuilding (which was immune from enforcement), and the fact that the site benefitted from an existing permission for residential use, were sufficient to make the site “previously developed land”. The Inspector agreed with the Council’s argument that the absence of any lawful permanent residential structure on the site meant it could not be considered PDL for the purposes of paragraph 154(g).

The Inspector concluded that, while the Appeal Development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing permission, the lack of proper flood mitigation meant that very special circumstances could not exist. He therefore declined to grant permission on Ground A.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the decision came under the Ground F appeal. The Appellants argued that the existing structure could be adapted to make it smaller, thereby making the Appeal Development a “caravan” and thus able to benefit from the existing permission.

The test for whether a structure is a “caravan” is set out in section 29 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It has three limbs:

• Size: The development must be smaller than 20m (length) x 6.8m (width) x 3.05m (height).
• Movement: The development must be capable of being moved as a single unit.
• Construction: The development must have been constructed in two separate parts which were then affixed together in a final act of assembly, by means of clamps and bolts, onsite.

In cross examination, the Appellants witnesses admitted that the Appeal Development had been constructed in two sections, which had been joined together onsite. These, however, had then been subject to substantial further works (including covering with a waterproof membrane). The Inspector concluded that, given the affixing of the two parts was not “the final act of construction”, the Appeal Development could not meet the “caravan test”.

A copy of the decision can be viewed here.

Sam Fowles is a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers and acted for the respondent council.