Wheeled car port is still a building, Inspector rules

A proposed car port on wheels would still be a building requiring planning permission, an Inspector has ruled in a Leigh-on-Sea appeal.

The timber structure would have no floor, no physical fixing to the ground and could be pulled around by hand when empty. The Inspector accepted that manual movement was more likely than not possible. It still did not take the structure outside planning control.

Its substantial size, building-like function and likely continued presence on a constrained suburban site mattered more than the fact that it sat on moving skates.

The wheeled car port at 33 Green Lane

The proposal concerned 33 Green Lane, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 5AP, within Southend-on-Sea City Council’s area. Mr Gavin Sharp of Sharp Builders sought a certificate confirming that the proposed structure would be lawful.

Application 24/00235/CLP, dated 12th February 2024, was refused on 18th April 2024. Inspector L Douglas dismissed appeal APP/D1590/X/24/3346233 on 4th September 2026.

You can read the complete Leigh-on-Sea car port appeal decision, hosted by Planning Geek.

The car port would measure approximately 5 metres by 4 metres and 2.3 metres high. It would have three enclosed sides, a fibreglass flat roof and an open front, or a front secured by roller shutters.

Panels would be joined with bolts and clamps, with rubber seals between them. The structure could be assembled off-site and would rest on moving skates rather than conventional foundations.

Although described as a car port, the stated purpose was shelter for unspecified incidental hobby uses during bad weather. The Inspector did not assume that it would simply be a vehicle parked on the driveway.

A lawfulness appeal, not a planning merits decision

This was a proposed-development certificate application under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The appellant’s case was that no development requiring permission would take place.

That is different from asking whether the council ought to approve a planning application. A lawful development certificate appeal turns on the legal position and the evidence, not a balance of planning benefits and objections.

The Inspector said that no planning permission benefiting the proposal had been brought to his attention. Once its placement on the land was found to involve building operations, the evidence did not establish that it would be lawful.

Size, permanence and attachment must be considered together

Section 55 of the 1990 Act includes building operations within the definition of development. Whether a particular object amounts to a building is a matter of fact and degree.

The decision refers to Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin’s Iron and Steel Co Ltd and Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No. 2) [2000] 2 PLR 102. The familiar considerations are size, permanence and degree of physical attachment.

They are not three independent boxes that must all be ticked. Limited attachment does not automatically defeat a finding that something is a building.

The linked Skerritts judgment, concerning a substantial marquee, also shows why permanence does not mean that a structure must remain forever. The planning significance of its presence matters. This is the March 2000 marquee case, not the separate Skerritts decision about listed-building curtilage.

Here, the car port’s dimensions and appearance were comparable to a conventional domestic outbuilding. It would occupy much of the eastern part of the front parking area and would function as a substantial shelter on the site.

Moveable in theory, unlikely to move in practice

The appellant explained that removable webbing could be used to pull the structure by hand. Importantly, the Inspector accepted that this was more likely than not possible when it was empty.

But movement would require its contents to be removed because it had no floor. The position of the house entrance, driveway and parking area also left very limited practical opportunities to move it elsewhere.

The Inspector considered it likely to stay in, or very close to, the position shown on the submitted drawing. Its use and the site’s physical constraints pointed towards a significant degree of permanence.

Nor was it decisive that normal building work might not be needed on site. The Inspector concluded that placing the completed structure on the land would amount to building operations, whether it was assembled there or brought in ready-made.

Our analysis: this was not a finding that the wheels were fake or that movement was physically impossible. The structure could be moved and still be a building. That is the useful distinction.

Why caravans and shepherd’s huts did not settle it

The appellant compared the proposal with large trailers, vehicles and caravans, which may remain on driveways for long periods.

The Inspector distinguished those examples. The car port was not a caravan within the statutory definition, nor a vehicle or trailer designed to transport items. A shepherd’s hut could ordinarily be moved with its contents, unlike the floorless proposal.

Other garden-caravan appeal decisions were mentioned, but copies and supporting documents were not supplied. The limited information did not establish a useful comparison.

This does not create a general exemption for every trailer, hut or caravan. Our guide to when a caravan can be a building explains why the individual structure, its use and the site circumstances still need checking.

The connection with Rayleigh’s shipping-container appeal

We recently reported the Limehouse Nursery appeal in Rayleigh, where 47 shipping containers were treated as buildings.

The physical objects and appeal procedures were different, but the central warning is similar: arriving complete, resting under your own weight or being capable of relocation does not, by itself, put a structure outside planning control.

Leigh-on-Sea adds a particularly clear domestic example because the Inspector accepted movement by hand, not just removal with lifting equipment.

Check the whole structure, not just its wheels

A car port being a building does not mean that every car port needs a separate planning application. Any available permission must still be considered, including whether Class E permitted development for outbuildings applies to the actual location, dimensions and use.

The point is that wheels are not a substitute for that assessment. No permission benefiting this proposal was identified in the appeal evidence, and its lawfulness was not established.

The Planning Geek lesson: assess the structure as a whole. Its size, purpose, likely duration and realistic movement on the particular site can matter more than the absence of bolts in the ground.

Sources: the locally hosted appeal decision linked above, particularly paragraphs 4–16; the linked March 2000 Skerritts judgment; and section 192 of the 1990 Act.