A garden mobile home proposed behind a house in Ealing has failed its certificate of lawfulness appeal because the applicant could not prove that the two-section structure would legally qualify as a caravan. Inspector Jonathan Edwards dismissed appeal 3368608 on 22nd October 2026.
The decisive problem was not its size, nor the absence of wheels. The plans described a steel-framed structure assembled in two sections, with kitchen, bathroom, living space and a bedroom. But the evidence did not establish that the completed unit could be lifted and transported without structural damage.
There was a second problem. Even treating the garden mobile home as a building, it did not meet the permitted development rules for an incidental outbuilding. I would treat this as a useful reminder that calling something a caravan, annexe or garden room does not settle its planning status. The construction evidence and the actual proposed use both matter.
What the Ealing garden mobile home appeal concerned
The case arose at 102 Studley Grange Road, Hanwell, London W7 2LX. An application dated 29 January 2025 sought a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ealing Council refused the application on 1 May 2025.
The proposal was described as stationing a mobile home within the curtilage of the dwelling. The larger, rear section would contain a living/dining room, kitchenette and bathroom. A smaller, front section would contain a bedroom. The two would be joined to form the complete unit.
The Inspector observed a structure already in the back garden during his site visit on 6 October 2026, but he could not verify that it had been built as described. He therefore decided the appeal on the evidence submitted for the proposed arrangement. That distinction matters: a certificate for proposed development tests what has been adequately described and demonstrated, not a speculative version of what might be on site.
This was a lawfulness appeal, not a planning merits appeal. The applicant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposal would be lawful.
Why the garden mobile home failed the caravan evidence test
Section 29 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines a caravan, with section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 addressing twin-unit caravans. Construction, assembly and mobility were therefore central.
The unit’s dimensions were not in dispute. The plans also gave the Inspector enough information to accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposed sections and their assembly could satisfy the twin-unit construction requirement. Importantly, that requirement does not mean every section must arrive at the site already complete.
The garden mobile home failed at the next stage. The applicant said the completed structure could be lifted by a crane using anchor points on a steel chassis and placed on a trailer. But the material supplied did not explain how the two sections would be connected or provide structural calculations showing that the complete unit could survive being lifted in one piece.
A unit does not need wheels or a drawbar to qualify as a caravan. Equally, saying that a crane could move it does not prove that it is capable of being moved. The Inspector was not satisfied that the evidence ruled out structural damage during lifting.
There was an interesting rejection of one council argument. Ealing suggested the position of the unit within the garden could restrict its mobility. The Inspector considered the legal mobility question to concern the structure itself, rather than how easy it would be to get a crane or vehicle into the garden. That did not save the appeal, because the applicant still lacked adequate proof of structural integrity.
For practical guidance on the distinction, I explain whether a caravan is a building and caravans in domestic gardens.
If it was not proved to be a caravan, was it a building?
The Inspector then assessed the proposed garden unit as a building, applying the established planning considerations of size, permanence and physical attachment. None of those factors alone is necessarily decisive. The assessment depends on all the circumstances.
The plans showed components to be assembled on site using skills comparable to those of a builder. The two-section structure would contain normal residential rooms, remain in the garden for a substantial period and connect to utilities. Although physical attachment to the ground was limited, the overall characteristics supported treating it as a building.
Consequently, the work would amount to building operations and would be development for which planning permission was required, unless permitted development rights or some other permission applied. The fact that the applicant called it a mobile home did not answer that separate legal question.
This is why a garden mobile home case should be approached as a sequence of questions. First establish what structure is genuinely proposed and what the evidence proves. Then consider whether it is a caravan, whether any building operations occur and whether those operations have permission. Skipping straight to a label such as ‘portable’ risks missing the controlling test.
Two independent reasons Class E could not help
The Inspector considered Part 1 Class E of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, which can permit buildings required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse. This is distinct from the commercial Use Class E.
The proposal failed a dimensional restriction. The side walls were well within two metres of the garden boundaries, and both elements stood above 2.5 metres: approximately 2.726 metres and 2.654 metres respectively. Where the relevant Class E building is within two metres of the boundary, the height limit is 2.5 metres. The plans therefore failed Class E.1(e)(ii).
The use issue was independently fatal. Although the accommodation was intended for the homeowner and close family, using the same services, entrance and garden as the main house, the Inspector regarded it as additional primary living space. It would be part and parcel of the home’s residential use, rather than a structure required for a purpose incidental to enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
Those are different concepts. A garden office or hobby room may be incidental in appropriate circumstances. Accommodation used as additional everyday living space is not made incidental merely because it is occupied by relatives and remains associated with one household.
The garden mobile home consequently could not rely on Class E even if the dimensions had been brought within the applicable limits. Planning Geek’s Class E outbuildings guide explains the restrictions, while our annexe guidance considers the separate question of residential accommodation.
What applicants should learn from this appeal
Anyone seeking a certificate for a twin-unit caravan should obtain properly specific construction and mobility evidence before submitting the application. At a minimum the submission needs to explain how the sections are formed and connected, demonstrate that the assembled structure has adequate strength to be moved as one unit, and show how the move would be achieved in practice.
Technical drawings and structural calculations may be necessary. The Inspector did not prescribe a universal engineering package, but unsupported assertions were insufficient here.
Separately, applicants need to identify precisely how the unit will be used. The extent of cooking and washing facilities is relevant context but not by itself a complete legal answer. The Inspector considered the entire proposal, including its relationship to the main dwelling, the intended accommodation and the applicable permitted development limitations.
The failed garden mobile home appeal also shows why the certificate route needs careful preparation. A certificate of lawfulness is not a discretionary planning permission granted because the impact seems modest. The applicant must establish that the proposal is lawful as described, judged against the law at the relevant date.
Readers weighing that route can see our dedicated guide to caravan lawful development certificates.
Why this garden mobile home decision matters
There is a useful distinction between this result and a broad proposition that all residential units in gardens need planning permission. A genuinely qualifying caravan associated with a dwelling may raise a different planning-use analysis, depending on the facts. Here the evidence was insufficient to prove caravan status, and the alternative outbuilding argument failed on both height and use.
The proper lesson is to establish the legal character of the unit before committing to an application strategy. Where a garden mobile home is intended to provide living accommodation, a confident answer depends on the structural details, the proposed use and the relevant planning controls, not its marketing description.
The Planning Inspectorate appeal record relates to decision APP/A5270/X/25/3368608, issued on 22nd October 2026.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments