Pub canopy appeal fails as Inspector rejects Class G moveable structure claim

A Class G moveable structure argument has failed at a Devon pub after an Inspector found that a substantial timber canopy wrapped around the building was not sufficiently moveable to benefit from permitted development rights.

Appeal 3352593 concerned The Woodpecker Bar and Kitchen at West Down, Ilfracombe. North Devon District Council had required the demolition and removal of a structure built along the south and east elevations of the premises.

The appellant relied on Schedule 2, Part 2, Class G of the GPDO, which can permit one moveable structure within the curtilage of a drinking establishment or food-and-drink premises. Inspector M Bale accepted that the structure was not fixed to the building or the ground, but found that its size, weight, bespoke shape, roof, lighting and heaters made it more likely than not to be a building operation that was not readily moveable.

Why the Class G moveable structure argument failed

Planning Geek’s guide to Class G moveable structures for pubs and restaurants explains this specific permitted development right in England.

It allows the provision of one moveable structure within the curtilage, and for the purposes, of a building used as a drinking establishment or premises for the sale of food and drink, subject to the detailed limitations in the GPDO wording.

The Inspector said the size limitations appeared to be met. That did not resolve whether this was a moveable structure.

The proposed Class G moveable structure was unusual. Its frame was formed from shaped logs and timber joined together without obvious nails, screws or other conventional fixings. The seating area remained open to the elements and the frame was not physically attached to the pub or anchored into the ground.

Those features helped the appellant, but they were not enough. Corrugated roofing had been fixed to the frame, while lights and heaters connected to the main building hung within it. The structure had also been made to a bespoke form which wrapped around the pub.

The Inspector considered its overall size and weight alongside those features. The question was not simply whether it could theoretically be dismantled or moved at some point. The permitted development right is for a moveable structure, and the appellant needed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the appeal development actually met that description.

Temporary was not the same as moveable

The appellant suggested that the canopy could be considered temporary. Bale drew an important distinction. A Class G moveable structure must satisfy the wording of that right. Describing a structure as temporary does not establish that it is moveable.

That difference matters. A substantial structure can be intended to remain only for a limited period but still amount to operational development because of its size, permanence and physical characteristics. Equally, something designed to move as a unit may fall into a different planning analysis even if it remains in one position for some time.

Here there was no detailed evidence explaining how the structure could actually be moved, when that might happen, or why the design should be regarded as moveable in practical terms. The Inspector therefore found that it had not been shown to fall within Class G.

In paragraph 5, Inspector M Bale said: “There is no particular evidence about how the structure could be moved, when or why that would happen.”

That is the practical weakness in this Class G moveable structure case. An assertion that the canopy was temporary did not demonstrate how the completed structure could be moved.

Ground (c) left no route to argue planning merits

The enforcement appeal was brought only on ground (c), meaning the appellant argued that the matters alleged in the notice did not amount to a breach of planning control.

The evidence also contained substantial material about why the structure might be beneficial or acceptable in planning terms. That did not help because there was no ground (a) appeal seeking planning permission for the development.

Inspector Bale was explicit that, without a ground (a) appeal, arguments about planning benefits and the merits of retaining the structure were of no consequence to the decision. The only live question was whether the development was lawful without planning permission.

This is a useful enforcement lesson. Choosing the appeal grounds determines what the Inspector is entitled to decide. If the legal case under permitted development fails and no ground (a) appeal has been made, there may be no fallback opportunity for the Inspector to grant planning permission on the merits.

Planning Geek’s guide to planning enforcement explains the distinction between the different statutory grounds.

Proving a Class G moveable structure case

On a ground (c) appeal, the appellant carries the burden of making out the case on the balance of probabilities. That is particularly important where the argument depends on a factual characteristic such as whether a structure is genuinely capable of being moved.

The Inspector recorded that the structure was not fixed to the building or ground and that the seating area was open to the elements. But the appellant had not provided practical evidence showing a realistic method of moving the completed canopy.

The fixed roofing, connected services, bespoke wraparound shape and overall weight collectively pointed the other way. Bale therefore concluded that it was more likely than not to be a building operation rather than a Class G moveable structure.

Planning Geek analysis

There are two practical points I would take from this decision. First, applicants relying on the Class G moveable structure right should prove each factual limb of the right rather than assume that the description they give the structure will be accepted. If movability is critical, evidence of how the structure is constructed, lifted, transported or repositioned can matter.

Second, enforcement appeal strategy needs to anticipate failure. Where there is a realistic prospect that the legal argument might not succeed, advisers should consider carefully whether a merits ground is also available and sensible. That does not mean every appeal should include ground (a), but the consequences of omitting it should be understood before the appeal is lodged.

The decision does not mean every timber shelter or pub canopy is development requiring planning permission. It turns on this structure’s physical characteristics and the evidence before the Inspector. A lighter structure genuinely designed to be moved may reach a different result.

Read the decision

Appeal APP/X1118/C/24/3352593 was dismissed on 2nd October 2026. The enforcement notice was upheld.

Read the full Inspector’s decision on Planning Geek, or view the Planning Inspectorate case record.