DC Casebook: Agricultural Development - Mobile stables evade building definition

An appellant has fended off an enforcement notice requiring her to remove a wooden stable block on land in North Yorkshire after an inspector decided that it is defective because the structure does not comprise a building.

The prefabricated structure had been assembled on-site. It was more than 7m long, almost 4m wide and more than 3m high and mounted on a timber frame and skids. Brackets allowed it to be towed by a tractor. It had no floor but rubber mats were placed in it directly onto the grass.

The inspector noted the judgement in Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2000], where the Court of Appeal held that whether or not a structure is a building depends on its size, permanence and attachment to the ground. The appeal structure did not rely on a hardstanding or foundations for support, she found.

The inspector agreed that it could have been assembled without specialist assistance from a builder and noted that water running off the roof was channelled directly onto the ground, with no fixed drainage system. In this light, she held that it did not involve a building and did not constitute development within the meaning of section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

DCS Number 100-069-048

Inspector Janice Chance; Written representations.


Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Join the conversation with PlanningResource on social media

Follow Us:
Planning Jobs