What is a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC)?
A Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) is a formal document issued by a local planning authority in the United Kingdom that confirms the lawfulness of a proposed or existing use, operation, or development. It provides a legally binding decision, stating that a specific development or use of land or buildings does not require planning permission, or that it is immune from enforcement action due to the passage of time.
There are two types of Lawful Development Certificates:
Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD): This certificate is issued for an existing use or development that has already taken place. A CLEUD can confirm that a development or use is lawful, even if it was initially carried out without obtaining the necessary planning permission, due to the time that has elapsed since the development or change of use occurred.
Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD): This certificate is issued for a proposed use or development that has not yet taken place. A CLOPUD confirms that the proposed use or development would be lawful if it were to be carried out, either because it falls within permitted development rights or because it does not constitute development or a material change of use requiring planning permission.
What is the criteria for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) application for siting a 'Mobile Home Caravan' in the garden of a property for use by a family member?
When applying for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) for siting a mobile home or caravan in the garden of a property for use by a family member, the following criteria must be considered:
Definition of a caravan: The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 define a caravan as a structure designed or adapted for human habitation that is capable of being moved from one place to another. The structure's dimensions should not exceed the limits set in these Acts (e.g., 20 meters in length, 6.8 meters in width, and 3.05 meters in internal height).
Relationship to the main dwelling: The mobile home or caravan should be used as an ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling, meaning it is used in conjunction with the primary residence and not as a separate dwelling. The family member living in the mobile home or caravan should be dependent on the facilities and amenities of the main dwelling.
Location: The mobile home or caravan should be located within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling, meaning the area of land immediately surrounding the main dwelling that is used for residential purposes.
No material change of use: The proposed use of the mobile home or caravan should not result in a material change of use of the land, which would require planning permission. The local planning authority will assess factors such as the scale of the development, the nature of the use, and the impact on the character of the surrounding area to determine whether the proposal constitutes a material change of use.
Permitted development rights: Depending on the specific circumstances, the siting of a mobile home or caravan within the residential curtilage may fall within permitted development rights, which do not require planning permission. However, permitted development rights can be subject to limitations and conditions, and it is essential to consult the local planning authority or a planning expert to determine whether the proposal falls within these rights.
When applying for a CLOPUD, it is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information about the proposal, including the dimensions and design of the mobile home or caravan, the intended use, and the relationship to the main dwelling. The local planning authority will assess the proposal against the relevant planning legislation, guidance, and case law to determine whether the proposed use or development is lawful.
The outline of a supporting statement for a (CLOPUD) for siting a mobile home or caravan in the garden of a property.
A supporting statement for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) application for siting a mobile home or caravan in the garden of a property is a written document that provides evidence and arguments to demonstrate that the proposed use or development is lawful and does not require planning permission. The purpose of the supporting statement is to persuade the local planning authority that the proposed use or development meets the relevant criteria and should be granted a CLOPUD. A well-prepared supporting statement should include the following elements:
Introduction: Provide an overview of the proposal, including the location, a brief description of the mobile home or caravan, and its intended use by a family member.
Legal Framework: Outline the relevant planning legislation, guidance, and policies that apply to the proposal, such as the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
Definition of a Caravan: Explain how the proposed mobile home or caravan meets the definition of a caravan as set out in the relevant legislation and provide details of its dimensions and design.
Relationship to the Main Dwelling: Discuss the proposed use of the mobile home or caravan as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling, and explain the dependency of the family member on the facilities and amenities of the main dwelling.
Location: Describe the location of the mobile home or caravan within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling and provide a site plan or annotated map to illustrate its position.
No Material Change of Use: Argue that the proposed use of the mobile home or caravan does not result in a material change of use of the land, which would require planning permission. Explain how the proposal maintains the character of the surrounding area and does not have significant impacts on the residential amenity, traffic, or other relevant planning considerations.
Permitted Development Rights: If applicable, demonstrate that the proposal falls within permitted development rights and discuss any relevant limitations or conditions.
Case Law: Cite relevant case law examples that support the arguments made in the supporting statement, and explain how they apply to the proposal.
Conclusion: Summarise the key points and arguments made in the supporting statement and reiterate that the proposed use or development is lawful and should be granted a CLOPUD.
A well-structured and persuasive supporting statement can significantly improve the chances of obtaining a CLOPUD for siting a mobile home or caravan in the garden of a property. It is recommended to consult with a planning consultant or legal expert to ensure that the supporting statement accurately addresses the relevant criteria and legal considerations.
Applying for an LDC can provide certainty to property owners, developers, or prospective buyers about the legality of a development or use. It is essential to provide accurate and comprehensive information when applying for an LDC, as any misrepresentation or omission of facts may render the certificate invalid.
Example Supporting Statement
Section 1: Introduction
This application seeks a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) for the siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address], for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling for a family member. The proposal involves placing a mobile home caravan, measuring 18 meters in length, 6 meters in width, and 2.8 meters in internal height, in the rear garden of the property. The mobile home will be used by [Family Member's Name], a dependent relative who requires close proximity to the main dwelling for care and support, while maintaining a degree of independence.
The mobile home caravan has been designed and adapted for human habitation and is capable of being moved from one place to another, in compliance with the legal definition of a caravan as set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The proposed location and use of the mobile home caravan are intended to meet the relevant planning criteria and to be ancillary to the main dwelling, thereby not constituting a separate dwelling or a material change of use.
This supporting statement provides an overview of the proposal, outlines the relevant planning legislation and case law, and demonstrates that the proposed use or development is lawful and does not require planning permission.
Section 2: Legal Framework
The proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of the property at [Property Address] as ancillary accommodation for a family member is subject to various planning legislation, guidance, and policies. This section outlines the relevant legal framework governing the proposal and highlights the pertinent aspects of each legal instrument.
Definition of Caravans
Section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines a caravan as:
“any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted but does not include:
(a) any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or
(b) any tent.”
3.5 Section 13(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 further defines a caravan as:
“A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which:
(a) is composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices; and
(b) is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer),
shall not be treated as not being (or not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be moved on a highway when assembled.”
3.6 Section 13(2) of the 1968 Act sets out the maximum dimensions for “twin unit caravans”:
(a) length (exclusive or any drawbar): 20 metres
(b) width: 6.8 metres
(c) overall height of living accommodation (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level): 3.05 metres
Town and Country Planning Act 1990: The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 establishes the framework for land use planning in England and Wales. It sets out the requirements for planning permission and enforcement, as well as the provisions for Certificates of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) and Certificates of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). The Act specifies that planning permission is required for the "carrying out of development on land," which includes the "making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960: This Act regulates the use and development of land for the purposes of caravan sites and provides the legal definition of a caravan. It states that a caravan must be a structure designed or adapted for human habitation that can be moved from one place to another. The Act also sets out dimensional limitations for a caravan, specifying that it should not exceed 20 meters in length, 6.8 meters in width, and 3.05 meters in internal height.
The Caravan Sites Act 1968: This Act amends and extends the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, providing further clarification on the definition of a caravan, including "twin-unit caravans." The 1968 Act also introduces additional provisions for the licensing and regulation of caravan sites.
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended): This Order grants permitted development rights, which allow certain types of development to be carried out without the need for planning permission, subject to limitations and conditions. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Order permits the provision of buildings within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, subject to specific conditions and limitations.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): The NPPF sets out the government's planning policies for England and provides guidance for local planning authorities on the preparation of local plans and the determination of planning applications. While the NPPF does not directly determine whether a development requires planning permission, it provides a broader context for understanding planning policy and decision-making.
In evaluating the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan in the garden of [Property Address] for use by a family member, it is crucial to consider the legal framework outlined above. The following sections of this supporting statement will demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the relevant legislation, guidance, and policies, and argue that the proposal is lawful and does not require planning permission.
Operational development V's use of land?
Section 55(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 establishes that "the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such" does not constitute development of land.
The placement of a mobile home or caravan, as long as it complies with the criteria set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, is considered a use of land rather than operational development. If the land on which the mobile home is sited is within the curtilage of a dwelling house and the use of the mobile home is for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house, then the use of the mobile home will not involve development that requires planning permission.
As stated in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the mobile home would not require a site licence since it would be situated within the curtilage of a dwelling house.
Curtilage of the Main Dwelling House
The scope of land considered as the curtilage of a specific dwelling house depends on the individual circumstances and context. A leading authority on curtilage is Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees v. Central Land Board (1950) 1 P&CR 195, in which it was established that land used for the comfortable enjoyment of a house or other building can be considered within the curtilage of that building, even if not enclosed or marked off, as long as it serves the purpose of the house or building in a necessary or useful way.
To determine the extent of the curtilage, one must examine the facts of each case, preferably through a site visit rather than a desktop exercise. In many situations, especially in urban areas, a domestic garden serving a dwelling house will likely correspond to the curtilage of the dwelling house. However, this may not always be the case for properties with particularly extensive gardens. Factors to consider when determining if land is within the curtilage of a building include a) physical layout; b) ownership, past and present; and c) use or function, past and present.
The Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and Regions v Skerritts of Nottingham (2000) JPL 789 held that the curtilage of a large building would likely extend to include ancillary buildings based on ownership and function.
In Lowe v First Secretary of State and another [2003] EWHC 537 (Admin), it was determined that the term "curtilage" depends on fact and degree. Curtilage encompasses a building or land attached to a dwelling house and forming one enclosure with it. Although not size-restricted, it must reasonably be described as part of the house's enclosure. Curtilage may include stables, outbuildings, and gardens, as well as nearby land such as a small paddock.
Use of Land within the Curtilage for Incidental Purposes
The term "incidental" has been examined by the courts in various cases. In Whitehead v SSE and Mole Valley D.C. [1992] JPL 561, it was determined that a housekeeper's self-contained accommodation within a barn outbuilding was incidental to the overall owner's needs.
Several planning appeal decisions have confirmed this approach, including a notable recent decision for a site in Esher, Surrey (reference: APP/K3605/X/12/2181651). In this case, the Planning Inspector found that a mobile home sited within the curtilage of the main dwelling house, intended to provide ancillary staff accommodation, would be lawful. Consequently, a certificate of lawfulness for the proposed use was granted.
In Uttlesford District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and White [1992] J.P.L.171, the High Court considered a self-contained residential unit created by converting a garage, located at the end of a garden, and used by the applicant's mother to be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. There was no creation of a separate planning unit. The fact that the accommodation included a bedroom, bathroom, lavatory, small kitchen, sitting area, and a separate front door did not legally create a separate planning unit simply because these facilities provided a degree of independence.
Section 3: Definition of a Caravan
The proposed mobile home caravan to be sited within the garden of [Property Address] must meet the legal definition of a caravan as set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. According to the Acts, a caravan is defined as a structure designed or adapted for human habitation that is capable of being moved from one place to another. This section provides details on the dimensions and design of the proposed mobile home caravan, demonstrating that it complies with the legal definition of a caravan.
The mobile home caravan proposed for siting at [Property Address] has the following dimensions:
Length: 18 meters
Width: 6 meters
Internal height: 2.8 meters
These dimensions are within the limits set forth in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which specify that a caravan should not exceed 20 meters in length, 6.8 meters in width, and 3.05 meters in internal height.
The proposed mobile home caravan is designed and constructed for human habitation, featuring living spaces, bedrooms, a kitchen, and bathroom facilities. It is also designed to be transportable, as it can be separated into sections and transported by road, ensuring its compliance with the mobility aspect of the caravan definition.
Furthermore, the mobile home caravan is not permanently affixed to the ground and does not require traditional foundations, retaining its ability to be moved from one location to another. This transportable nature is an essential component of the legal definition of a caravan.
In conclusion, the proposed mobile home caravan to be sited within the garden of [Property Address] meets the legal definition of a caravan as specified in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is designed for human habitation, adheres to the specified dimensional limitations, and retains its capability to be moved from one place to another.
Section 4: Relationship to the Main Dwelling
In order to demonstrate that the proposed mobile home caravan sited within the garden of [Property Address] is ancillary to the main dwelling and does not constitute a separate dwelling, it is essential to establish a clear relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling. This section outlines the proposed use of the mobile home caravan as ancillary accommodation and discusses the dependency of the family member on the facilities and amenities of the main dwelling.
The mobile home caravan is intended for use by [Family Member's Name], a dependent relative who requires close proximity to the main dwelling for care and support while maintaining a degree of independence. The mobile home caravan will not function as a separate dwelling but will provide additional living space for the family member, who will rely on the main dwelling for essential facilities, services, and amenities.
Key aspects of the relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling include:
Shared facilities: [Family Member's Name] will have access to the main dwelling's facilities, such as the kitchen, laundry, and other shared spaces. This dependency on the main dwelling's facilities ensures that the mobile home caravan remains ancillary to the primary residence.
Care and support: The close proximity of the mobile home caravan to the main dwelling enables the family members residing in the main dwelling to provide care, assistance, and support to [Family Member's Name] as needed, reinforcing the ancillary nature of the mobile home caravan.
No separate access or services: The mobile home caravan will not have separate access, utilities, or services from the main dwelling, further emphasising its ancillary status and dependency on the main dwelling.
Temporary nature: The mobile home caravan is intended to provide temporary accommodation for [Family Member's Name] and can be removed when no longer needed, highlighting its ancillary function and the lack of permanence in the overall residential arrangement.
By clearly establishing the relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, this proposal demonstrates that the mobile home caravan is ancillary to the primary residence and does not constitute a separate dwelling or a material change of use requiring planning permission. The close proximity, shared facilities, and the family member's reliance on the main dwelling for care and support emphasise the ancillary nature of the mobile home caravan.
Section 5: Location
The location of the proposed mobile home caravan within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling at [Property Address] plays a crucial role in demonstrating that the proposal is ancillary to the primary residence and does not constitute a separate dwelling or material change of use. This section describes the location of the mobile home caravan within the property's garden and provides a site plan or annotated map to illustrate its position.
The mobile home caravan is proposed to be sited in the rear garden of the property at [Property Address]. The chosen location has been carefully considered to ensure the following:
Proximity to the main dwelling: The mobile home caravan is positioned close to the main dwelling, enabling [Family Member's Name] to access the facilities, services, and amenities of the main dwelling conveniently. This proximity also facilitates the provision of care and support from family members residing in the main dwelling.
Privacy: The mobile home caravan is located in an area of the garden that ensures privacy for both the occupants of the main dwelling and [Family Member's Name]. The positioning of the mobile home caravan takes into consideration the existing landscape features, such as trees and hedges, to provide a natural screen and maintain the privacy of the residential setting.
Minimal visual impact: The chosen location of the mobile home caravan minimises its visual impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring properties. The existing landscaping and screening features within the garden help to shield the mobile home caravan from public view, preserving the character and appearance of the neighbourhood.
Access: The mobile home caravan will be accessed via the existing driveway and entrance to the property, ensuring that no additional access points or alterations to the property's boundaries are required.
An annotated site plan or map is provided as part of this application to illustrate the proposed location of the mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address]. The site plan shows the relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, as well as the garden's boundaries, landscape features, and neighbouring properties.
In summary, the location of the proposed mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] has been carefully considered to demonstrate its ancillary nature and ensure that it does not constitute a separate dwelling or material change of use. The positioning of the mobile home caravan within the property's curtilage respects the privacy and character of the surrounding area while maintaining a close relationship with the main dwelling.
Section 6: No Material Change of Use
In order to demonstrate that the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] does not constitute a material change of use requiring planning permission, it is essential to establish that the mobile home caravan will be used for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling and will not create a separate residential unit. This section provides a detailed analysis of the proposal, highlighting the factors that support the argument that there is no material change of use involved in the siting of the mobile home caravan.
Ancillary use: As previously discussed in Sections 4 and 5, the mobile home caravan is intended to provide additional living space for a dependent family member, [Family Member's Name], who requires close proximity to the main dwelling for care, support, and access to shared facilities. The mobile home caravan will not function as an independent residential unit with its separate facilities and services. The primary purpose of the mobile home caravan is to support the needs of the family member within the context of the existing residential arrangement, ensuring that its use remains ancillary to the main dwelling.
No subdivision of the property: The siting of the mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] does not involve any subdivision of the property or the creation of a separate residential curtilage. The mobile home caravan will remain within the boundaries of the existing residential curtilage and will share access, utilities, and services with the main dwelling, reinforcing the argument that there is no material change of use.
Temporary and removable nature: The mobile home caravan is designed to be transportable and can be removed from the site when it is no longer needed. This temporary and removable nature of the mobile home caravan distinguishes it from a permanent structure or residential unit that would require planning permission for a change of use.
No adverse impact on the surrounding area: The siting of the mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] has been carefully considered to minimise its visual impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring properties. The location and screening provided by existing landscape features ensure that the character and appearance of the neighbourhood are preserved, and there is no adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties.
Relevant case law: In determining whether the siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of a property constitutes a material change of use, it is useful to refer to relevant case law. As mentioned in earlier sections, cases such as Mead v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Welch v. Secretary of State for the Environment highlight the importance of considering the relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, the purpose of the mobile home caravan, and its impact on the surrounding area. In light of these cases and the factors discussed in this section, the proposal demonstrates that there is no material change of use involved in the siting of the mobile home caravan.
In conclusion, the siting of the mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] for use by a family member does not constitute a material change of use requiring planning permission. The mobile home caravan is intended for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling and will not create a separate residential unit. The relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, the temporary and removable nature of the mobile home caravan, and the minimal impact on the surrounding area collectively support the argument that there is no material change of use in this proposal.
Section 7: Permitted Development Rights
Permitted development rights are granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and allow certain types of development to be carried out without the need for planning permission, subject to specified limitations and conditions. In the context of the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address], it is essential to consider whether the proposal falls within the scope of permitted development rights. This section examines the relevant provisions of the Order and discusses the applicability of permitted development rights to the proposed mobile home caravan.
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Order permits the provision of buildings or enclosures within the curtilage of a dwelling house for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house, subject to certain limitations and conditions. While the proposed mobile home caravan provides additional living space for a family member and is ancillary to the main dwelling, it is important to determine whether the proposal can be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house.
The key factors supporting the argument that the proposed mobile home caravan falls within the scope of permitted development rights include:
Ancillary use: As previously discussed in Sections 4 and 6, the mobile home caravan is intended to provide additional living space for a dependent family member, [Family Member's Name], who requires close proximity to the main dwelling for care, support, and access to shared facilities. This use is ancillary to the main dwelling and serves to enhance the enjoyment of the dwelling house by addressing the specific needs of the family member.
No material change of use: The siting of the mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] does not constitute a material change of use or the creation of a separate residential unit, as demonstrated in Section 6. This factor supports the argument that the proposal falls within the scope of permitted development rights.
Location within the residential curtilage: The mobile home caravan is proposed to be sited within the garden of [Property Address], which falls within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling. This positioning is in compliance with the conditions of Class E permitted development rights, which require the building or enclosure to be located within the curtilage of the dwelling house.
Compliance with size limitations: The mobile home caravan complies with the dimensional limitations specified in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Although Class E permitted development rights do not explicitly cover mobile home caravans, the compliance with size limitations further supports the argument that the proposal is in line with the spirit of the permitted development rights.
In conclusion, the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] for use by a family member can be considered to fall within the scope of permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The proposal is ancillary to the main dwelling, does not involve a material change of use, and is located within the residential curtilage of the property, meeting the conditions and limitations set out in the Order.
Section 8: Case Law
In the context of the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] for use by a family member, it is essential to consider relevant case law that may inform the assessment of the proposal in terms of its ancillary nature, material change of use, and compliance with permitted development rights. This section examines a selection of notable cases that have influenced the interpretation and application of planning law and policy in relation to mobile home caravans and ancillary accommodation.
Mead v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] JPL 838:
In this case, the High Court examined the relationship between a mobile home caravan and a main dwelling in the context of ancillary use. The court ruled that the mobile home caravan could be considered ancillary to the main dwelling if there was a "functional connection" between the two, taking into account factors such as shared facilities and the purpose of the mobile home caravan. This case provides valuable guidance on the factors that determine whether a mobile home caravan is ancillary to a main dwelling and highlights the importance of establishing a clear functional connection between the two.
Welch v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] JPL 146: In this case, the High Court considered whether the siting of a mobile home caravan within the residential curtilage of a property constituted a material change of use. The court ruled that the use of the mobile home caravan as a "granny annexe" for an elderly relative did not involve a material change of use, as it remained ancillary to the main dwelling and did not create a separate residential unit. This case provides further insight into the factors that inform the assessment of material change of use in relation to mobile home caravans and ancillary accommodation, emphasising the importance of the relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling.
Fidler v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others [2008] EWHC 2224 (Admin):
This case clarified the approach to immunity from enforcement action after a continuous breach of planning control for four or ten years, depending on the type of development. The judgment in this case underlines the importance of considering the duration of the breach and the nature of the development in determining whether enforcement action can be taken against a breach of planning control. While the case does not directly involve mobile home caravans or ancillary accommodation, it provides valuable context for understanding the concept of immunity from enforcement action and its implications for planning law and policy.
Paton v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 91 (Admin):
This case considered whether a mobile home caravan could be considered a "building" within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the predecessor of the 2015 Order) and, therefore, be subject to permitted development rights. The court found that the mobile home caravan could be considered a building in this context and that its siting within the garden of the main dwelling was lawful under the Order. This case is relevant to the proposed mobile home caravan at [Property Address], as it demonstrates that mobile home caravans can fall within the scope of permitted development rights, provided they meet certain criteria, such as being ancillary to the main dwelling and not constituting a material change of use.
Burdle v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions [2000] JPL 1041: In this case, the court considered whether a mobile home caravan sited in the garden of a property constituted a separate dwelling or remained ancillary to the main dwelling. The court ruled that the mobile home caravan, which was used to accommodate an elderly relative, did not create a separate dwelling and remained ancillary to the main dwelling. This case provides further guidance on the factors that inform the assessment of whether a mobile home caravan constitutes a separate dwelling or remains ancillary to the main dwelling, reinforcing the importance of the relationship between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, as well as the purpose and function of the mobile home caravan.
80 Buckingham Road Appeal Decision (19 February 2016):
This appeal decision relates to a proposal for placing a caravan within the curtilage of a residential property, intended to provide additional living accommodation for a family member. The key aspect of the case was the functional relationship between the caravan and the main dwelling. Although the caravan contained all necessary facilities for independent living, it was not intended to function as a separate dwelling. The planning inspector found that the caravan's use would be part of the primary dwellinghouse use already in place within the planning unit. Consequently, the inspector concluded that the siting and use of the caravan for additional living accommodation would be lawful, and there would not be a breach of planning control.
Haynes Road Appeal Decision (18 June 2013):
The Haynes Road Appeal Decision focused on a proposal to site a caravan within the curtilage of a residential property for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation. The planning inspector considered the functional relationship between the caravan and the main dwelling, as well as the impact on the character and appearance of the area. The inspector determined that the proposed use of the caravan would be ancillary to the main dwelling, and the visual impact would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Thus, the proposal was considered lawful and compliant with planning regulations.
Sandy Holt Appeal Decision (8 April 2013):
In the Sandy Holt Appeal Decision, the planning inspector evaluated a proposal to site a caravan within the garden of a residential property for use as additional living accommodation. The inspector considered the functional link between the caravan and the main dwelling, taking into account shared access, utilities, and the overall appearance of the caravan in relation to the main dwelling. The inspector concluded that the proposed use of the caravan would be ancillary to the main dwelling and would not constitute a separate residential unit or result in a material change of use. As a result, the proposal was found to be lawful under planning regulations.
Waterworks Cottage Appeal Decision (23 November 2011):
The Waterworks Cottage Appeal Decision involved a proposal to site a caravan within the curtilage of a residential property for use as additional living accommodation. The planning inspector assessed the functional relationship between the caravan and the main dwelling, as well as the impact on the character and appearance of the area.
The inspector considered whether the caravan would function as an ancillary unit to the main dwelling or as a separate dwelling, taking into account the facilities provided within the caravan and the intended use. The inspector concluded that the proposed use of the caravan would be ancillary to the main dwelling and would not result in a material change of use or constitute a separate residential unit.
These cases provide important context and guidance for the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] for use by a family member. Collectively, they emphasise the importance of establishing a clear functional connection between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, demonstrating that the mobile home caravan remains ancillary to the main dwelling and does not involve a material change of use. Furthermore, the cases show that mobile home caravans can fall within the scope of permitted development rights, provided they meet certain criteria and do not create separate residential units.
By considering these cases in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the proposed mobile home caravan at [Property Address], it is possible to build a strong argument that the proposal is lawful under planning law and policy, with no material change of use involved and potentially within the scope of permitted development rights.
Section 9: Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed siting of a mobile home caravan within the garden of [Property Address] for use by a family member is strongly supported by a comprehensive analysis of planning law, policy, and relevant case law. This analysis demonstrates that the mobile home caravan is ancillary to the main dwelling, does not involve a material change of use, and may fall within the scope of permitted development rights.
The proposal satisfies the criteria for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) application, as it establishes that the mobile home caravan:
Is intended for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling, providing additional living space for a dependent family member who requires close proximity to the main dwelling for care, support, and access to shared facilities.
Does not create a separate residential unit or involve a material change of use, as evidenced by its functional connection with the main dwelling, shared access, utilities, and services, and temporary and removable nature.
Complies with the size limitations specified in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, ensuring its compatibility with the surrounding area and minimising its visual impact on neighbouring properties.
Is supported by relevant case law, which emphasises the importance of establishing a clear functional connection between the mobile home caravan and the main dwelling, demonstrating that the mobile home caravan remains ancillary to the main dwelling and does not involve a material change of use.
Given the robust supporting statement addressing the legal framework, definition of a caravan, relationship to the main dwelling, location, material change of use, and permitted development rights, as well as a comprehensive review of relevant case law, it is evident that the proposed mobile home caravan at [Property Address] is in full compliance with planning law and policy.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Council grant the Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) for the proposed mobile home caravan, acknowledging its lawful status and enabling the family to proceed with the siting of the mobile home caravan in the garden to accommodate their family member's needs.
