A mobile stable in the North York Moors has escaped enforcement after an Inspector found that it was not a building and that placing it on the land did not amount to development.
The timber structure rested on metal skids, had no foundations or physical attachment to the ground, and had arrived fully assembled. Its potential to remain in place indefinitely did not outweigh its relatively modest size and lack of attachment.
Inspector J Whitfield allowed both appeals concerning land south of Crosses Farm, Harwood Dale, on 11th September 2026. The enforcement notice was quashed.
What the enforcement notice alleged
North York Moors National Park Authority issued the notice on 13th May 2025. It alleged the unauthorised erection of a timber stable building and required its removal within three months.
The appellants did not dispute that a timber structure was present. They disputed whether it was a building and whether its siting involved development for which planning permission was required.
That distinction was central. A structure does not require planning permission merely because an authority calls it a stable building in an enforcement notice.
Our planning enforcement guidance explains why identifying the actual breach matters before considering whether permission should be granted or a structure removed.
The mobile stable rested on skids, not foundations
The shelter was described as approximately 3.65 metres by 7.3 metres, or 12 feet by 24 feet. It sat on metal skids and had a towing bar allowing it to be moved without disassembly.
It had no foundations and was not fixed to the ground. The evidence was that it had been transported to the field fully assembled from another part of the holding, without being taken apart or modified.
On his site visit, the Inspector found it relatively modest in height and bulk. It rested under its own weight, and there was no evidence of anchoring or pegging to the ground.
These facts mattered collectively. None creates an automatic exemption for every structure sold as a mobile field shelter.
Skerritts was not too old to apply
The authority suggested that Skerritts was out of date. The Inspector rejected that argument: the Court of Appeal authority remained relevant, and the passage of time was not a reason to disregard it.
Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No. 2), reported at [2000] 2 PLR 102, applies the familiar factors of size, permanence and physical attachment.
Whether an object is a building is a matter of fact and degree. The factors are not three boxes which must all be ticked, nor does the absence of foundations automatically settle the answer.
Here, the Inspector accepted that a shelter capable of remaining indefinitely had a degree of permanence. But he gave determinative weight to its modest size and lack of physical attachment, considered alongside the evidence about its transport and siting.
The conclusion was that this structure was not a building for the purposes of Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Why the Woolley Valley poultry units were different
The authority relied on R (Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 2161 (Admin).
There were similarities: the poultry units in that case were on skids, were not permanently fixed to the ground and could be pulled by a tractor. But the Inspector identified important differences.
Those units measured approximately 20 metres by 6 metres and were intended to accommodate around 1,000 hens. They were much larger, could be assembled over a couple of days on site and required disassembly on site for removal. The decision also noted evidence of pegging during high winds.
The Harwood Dale shelter, by contrast, had been transported fully formed and required no on-site assembly. The Inspector also explained that Woolley Valley endorsed, rather than displaced, the approach in Skerritts.
There is no simple size threshold in this comparison. The decision distinguishes the facts and the combined assessment; it does not say that structures below a particular footprint are automatically chattels.
Transporting and placing it was not an “other operation”
Finding that an object is not a building does not necessarily end the legal analysis. Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 also includes engineering, mining and other operations within the definition of development.
The Inspector found no building operations here, and no basis for treating the siting as engineering or mining operations. He then considered the remaining category.
The authority had referred to the need to consider other operations in Woolley Valley, but had not made a substantive case that this shelter’s siting fell within that category. There was no evidence before the Inspector establishing that it did.
On these facts, he found that transporting the completed shelter, lifting it onto the land and moving it into position did not constitute an operation in the planning sense. No construction or assembly had occurred on the site.
This is a finding about the particular acts and evidence before him, not a general exemption for all deliveries, crane lifts or installations. Foundations, bases, earthworks and associated works would require their own assessment where present.
Ground (c) succeeded and the notice was quashed
The appeals on ground (b) failed because the structure’s presence was not disputed as a matter of fact. The successful argument belonged under ground (c): the alleged activity did not constitute a breach of planning control.
The Inspector found the appellants’ evidence sufficiently precise and unambiguous. The authority had cited different cases but had not produced substantive evidence contradicting the relevant facts here.
Both appeals therefore succeeded on ground (c), and the notice was quashed. There was no need to determine the ground (d) immunity arguments.
Planning Geek analysis: check the shelter and the land separately
This is a useful decision for equestrian planning because it shows why a blanket rule that every mobile stable is a building is unsafe. Equally, it does not support a blanket rule that every shelter on skids is exempt.
Evidence about dimensions, construction, attachment, movement and how the structure arrived can be more useful than a manufacturer’s description. The decision-maker must assess those facts together, including any permanence.
The lawful use of the land is a separate issue. This notice alleged erection of a building; the decision should not be presented as permission for any equestrian use of the surrounding field.
Our guide to agricultural and equestrian land use explains why grazing and keeping horses can raise different questions. A finding that a shelter is a chattel does not cure an unlawful material change of use.
Read the appeal decisions
APP/W9500/C/25/3367328 and APP/W9500/C/25/3367329; land south of Crosses Farm, Harwood Dale; decision dated 11th September 2026. Download the combined Harwood Dale appeal decision: APP/W9500/C/25/3367328 and APP/W9500/C/25/3367329 (PDF). The main legal assessment is at paragraphs 5–18, including the comparison with Woolley Valley at paragraphs 10–12 and the other-operations finding at paragraph 14. Report prepared: 12th September 2026
0 Comments