5 minute read
Temporary shelters and planning permission
from Alpaca Issue 87
by KELSEY Media
Ian Pople, principal planner at Willis & Co, offers some guidance to help owners who want to build field shelters keep on the right side of the local planning authority (LPA).
Picture the scene – you have been fortunate enough to secure your land and you are eagerly awaiting the arrival of your first alpacas or perhaps your current herd is expanding. You are going to need some form of shelter to protect them from the Great British weather and you’ve found the perfect solution advertised for sale that will fit the bill nicely. The seller tells you that people put them up all the time and that they don’t need planning permission; but are they right?
Here at Willis & Co. we have been involved in numerous cases where unsuspecting clients have fallen foul of their local planning authority (LPA) when erecting so-called temporary shelters on their land. This often arises due to a complaint from a neighbour, or if a planning officer happens to notice them while undertaking a site visit in relation to another planning application that you might have submitted.
Those of you that have had experience of the planning system already are probably all too aware that there are many grey areas and temporary shelters are no exception.
Put simply, any object placed on land could be considered to be development under Section 55 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, it is the nature, use and degree of permanence of any such object that defines whether or not that object is a building or structure that could require planning permission under Section 57 of the same Act.
Historically, in assessing such matters, a LPA would have relied upon the tests established in planning case law, notably in Cardiff Rating Authority v. Guest Keen Baldwin [1949] and later Skerritts of Nottingham Limited v SSETR [2000]. These cases set out the importance of considering whether temporary, moveable objects such as field shelters and the like are indeed ‘structures’ or ‘buildings’ as far as planning legislation is concerned.
To be classed as temporary, moveable objects that do not require permission, the above cases suggested that such development would be akin to a chattel – something normally on wheels or skids that could be (and was) easily and regularly moved with a tractor or 4x4. A structure or building on the other hand was traditionally considered to be something that was fixed to the ground or required a substantial base, such that it is generally immobile and acquires a degree of permanence. Development falling into the latter categories of a structure or building are generally deemed to require some form of planning permission.
However, a more recent decision in the High Court (R (Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012]), often referred to as the ‘Woolley Chickens’ case, has clouded the matter further.
This case was brought against the LPA following their decision not to consider a number of sizeable chicken sheds, each 20m x 6m as buildings that required planning permission. The LPA argued that although large in scale, the chicken sheds were mounted on wheeled axles and were therefore capable of being moved and fell within the definition of a moveable object or chattel based on the tests outlined in Cardiff Rating and Skerritts. However, the High Court considered that the LPA had erred in law by taking too narrow a view in interpreting the meaning of development as defined by Section 55 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. While the sheds were capable of being moved, they had not altered position since the time they had been brought to that site. Indeed their sheer size, scale and use meant it was unreasonable to suggest they were anything other than buildings. The Judge also noted that just because the sheds were potentially moveable, it did not mean they couldn’t be considered as a building or structure within the meaning of development. As a result, the Court disagreed with the Council’s interpretation and the claimants’ case was upheld.
So where does this leave us? On the basis of the judgements detailed above, it is clear that each case is different. The extent to which an object placed on the land can be considered to be a moveable shelter or a building that requires planning permission, is a matter of fact and degree that will vary according to the individual circumstances of each case.
In light of this, there are too many variables at play to be able to give a definitive catch-all opinion. There are also many occasions when such shelters may in fact be allowed as agricultural permitted development, capable of being approved by the LPA through a prior notification application.
We would therefore always suggest seeking advice prior to putting anything on your land to ensure you are not left to the mercy of the local planning authority’s enforcement officer.
Should you have any questions with respect to specific projects or sites, then we would be happy to review these and advise on the best course of action.
