The appellant had purchased the appeal site and an adjoining building plot in 2005. The house was substantially complete and the appellant had let the property to a third party. However, she and her family continued to live in a mobile home that had been stationed at the rear of the plot in 2006.
She claimed that the mobile home was permitted under the temporary use provisions in class A, part 4, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995. She added that it was also permitted under part 5, schedule 2, which authorises the siting of a caravan occupied by persons employed in a building or engineering project
The inspector rejected the claim that the unit was authorised under part 4. He noted that the GPDO's reference to "moveable structures" does not apply to residential caravans, a point underlined by the statement in this part of the order expressly excluding the use of land as a caravan site. Part 5 did not apply because the appellant had instructed contractors to build the house and took no part in its construction, he reasoned.
Because the house was virtually complete and occupied, he saw no legal reason to allow the mobile home to remain. Citing the judgement in Murfitt v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980], he also held that it was appropriate for the council to request the removal of the hardstanding on which it was sited and restoration of the land beneath.
DCS Number 100-051-225
Inspector Colin Johnson; Hearing.
