Can my neighbour get away with this....

molerat

From the earlier link it clearly doesn't comply with the act if it was built on site rather than transported in sections

To qualify as a caravan under the Act, a structure must:

• Be capable of being transported by road (via lorry, trailer, or craned in).
• Be built in one or two sections that can be bolted together on site.

WIAWSNB

Did you see the prep work? Any indication a sewer pipe was laid?

Herzlos

molerat said:

From the earlier link it clearly doesn't comply with the act if it was built on site rather than transported in sections

To qualify as a caravan under the Act, a structure must:

• Be capable of being transported by road (via lorry, trailer, or craned in).
• Be built in one or two sections that can be bolted together on site.

The wording on the 2nd point is a big vague. It doesn't mention where it's build. If it's built in one section on site, or built in 2 halves, then it's fine. It doesn't mention whether it can be split back into 2 sections. 

I'm not sure how it'd be capable of being craned in, or how you'd prove or disprove it. For it to be practical it'd need a decent sub-frame and mounting points but there's no reason you couldn't fit something later to move it. 

I mean it's very obviously being built as a cabin and not a caravan, but that'll be difficult to prove violates the act. 

I think the big sticking point is the council tax if it's a permanent dwelling. Noise may also be a concern if it's too flimsy built, but again that'd be hard to prove. 


Though I will say that it doesn't look any worse than a large shed, and that OP won't even notice it after a while. I find it hard to believe that it's going to ruin the enjoyment of house and garden based on visuals alone. 

Bamberella

WIAWSNB said:

Did you see the prep work? Any indication a sewer pipe was laid?

Yes they have plumbed into the drain my property shares with the one on their plot

molerat

I suspect it is the use rather than the actual building which is the real problem.

lincroft1710

Brie said:

So basically it's an annex (however they've got round that).  Perhaps drop a word to the council tax department about that as they will need to be paying a separate amount, I believe.  And maybe that will highlight the fact that they've got round the rules.  

.

If a "genuine" caravan in a garden was used as a separate dwelling then that would correctly attract its own CT band. So reporting the structure being used as a separate dwelling will not highlight "they've got round the rules"

lincroft1710

I have seen brick and tile constructed annexes passed by planning in very similar situations so even if it was proved the structure wasn't a "caravan" it may well have been allowed. 

Bamberella

Herzlos said:

molerat said:

From the earlier link it clearly doesn't comply with the act if it was built on site rather than transported in sections

To qualify as a caravan under the Act, a structure must:

• Be capable of being transported by road (via lorry, trailer, or craned in).
• Be built in one or two sections that can be bolted together on site.

The wording on the 2nd point is a big vague. It doesn't mention where it's build. If it's built in one section on site, or built in 2 halves, then it's fine. It doesn't mention whether it can be split back into 2 sections. 

I'm not sure how it'd be capable of being craned in, or how you'd prove or disprove it. For it to be practical it'd need a decent sub-frame and mounting points but there's no reason you couldn't fit something later to move it. 

I mean it's very obviously being built as a cabin and not a caravan, but that'll be difficult to prove violates the act. 

I think the big sticking point is the council tax if it's a permanent dwelling. Noise may also be a concern if it's too flimsy built, but again that'd be hard to prove. 


Though I will say that it doesn't look any worse than a large shed, and that OP won't even notice it after a while. I find it hard to believe that it's going to ruin the enjoyment of house and garden based on visuals alone. 

With regards to your last comment confirming it does not look any worse than a large shed, I did chuckle!! It is 20m x 6.8m, so a total floor space of 136sqm. The floor space for an average bungalow in England is about 75sqm. In fact this new structure is going to be bigger than the footprint of the original residential house that was built on the plot. I would love to see your shed if it is anything like that size. And as for the fact of ruining my enjoyment, let me paint a picture. When you have spent a small fortune on the designing of your home, which includes 2 x 4m wide sliding doors that lead from your combined kitchen, dining room and living room, (where you spend most of your time with your family) and makes the most of the view of your garden and the neighbouring trees and greenery...yes it does ruin the enjoyment of my house and garden. Sorry if you do not agree but everyone has different tolerances and boundaries. I am just looking for advice, not agreement with my opinions. 

MeteredOut

Bamberella said:

Herzlos said:

molerat said:

From the earlier link it clearly doesn't comply with the act if it was built on site rather than transported in sections

To qualify as a caravan under the Act, a structure must:

• Be capable of being transported by road (via lorry, trailer, or craned in).
• Be built in one or two sections that can be bolted together on site.

The wording on the 2nd point is a big vague. It doesn't mention where it's build. If it's built in one section on site, or built in 2 halves, then it's fine. It doesn't mention whether it can be split back into 2 sections. 

I'm not sure how it'd be capable of being craned in, or how you'd prove or disprove it. For it to be practical it'd need a decent sub-frame and mounting points but there's no reason you couldn't fit something later to move it. 

I mean it's very obviously being built as a cabin and not a caravan, but that'll be difficult to prove violates the act. 

I think the big sticking point is the council tax if it's a permanent dwelling. Noise may also be a concern if it's too flimsy built, but again that'd be hard to prove. 


Though I will say that it doesn't look any worse than a large shed, and that OP won't even notice it after a while. I find it hard to believe that it's going to ruin the enjoyment of house and garden based on visuals alone. 

With regards to your last comment confirming it does not look any worse than a large shed, I did chuckle!! It is 20m x 6.8m, so a total floor space of 136sqm. The floor space for an average bungalow in England is about 75sqm. In fact this new structure is going to be bigger than the footprint of the original residential house that was built on the plot. I would love to see your shed if it is anything like that size. And as for the fact of ruining my enjoyment, let me paint a picture. When you have spent a small fortune on the designing of your home, which includes 2 x 4m wide sliding doors that lead from your combined kitchen, dining room and living room, (where you spend most of your time with your family) and makes the most of the view of your garden and the neighbouring trees and greenery...yes it does ruin the enjoyment of my house and garden. Sorry if you do not agree but everyone has different tolerances and boundaries. I am just looking for advice, not agreement with my opinions. 

My advice is that you need to concentrate on the things you can change, and the right to view your neighbours trees is not one of those.

So

- Does it comply with the Caravan Act? Have the council actually checked, post-installtion?
- Can you screen the view to your benefit as suggested?
- Will the use of the building go beyond what the Caravan Act allows for - it sounds like you're confident it will, in which case this can be raised, but it might have to wait until after it is completed

Bamberella

lincroft1710 said:

I have seen brick and tile constructed annexes passed by planning in very similar situations so even if it was proved the structure wasn't a "caravan" it may well have been allowed. 

They applied to the Council for Lawful Development Certificate and it was refused and classed as unlawful due to the applicant not being able to explain why it needed to be so big and how it would be reasonably required for incidental purposes