Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 2192 (Admin)
The point in plain English: An Inspector cannot simply assume that an assembled mobile structure satisfies the statutory mobility test. There must be evidence capable of supporting the conclusion that the structure, once assembled, can actually be moved by road as required by the caravan legislation.
What the High Court decided
The case arose from an enforcement notice concerning a timber structure on agricultural land. The structure had arrived on a lorry and trailer in two parts and was bolted together on site. The occupier, Mr Entwhistle, said that it was a caravan and that he was occupying it in connection with building operations on adjoining land.
A Planning Inspector accepted that the structure was a caravan. The Inspector considered that, although moving the assembled unit on its own wheels might cause damage, it could be lifted and transported on a suitable trailer. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council challenged that conclusion.
HHJ Waksman QC held that there was no proper evidential basis for the Inspector’s finding on mobility. The burden of establishing that the structure met the statutory caravan definition lay with the person relying on that status. The decision was therefore quashed and the matter remitted.
Why the case still matters
Bury is a useful warning against treating mobility as a label or assumption. Evidence about construction, chassis, lifting, towing, transport method and whether the completed structure can actually be moved can become decisive.
For large mobile homes and modern production units, that means drawings, manufacturer’s specifications and transport information may matter if caravan status is disputed. A unit arriving by road in sections does not by itself prove that the assembled structure satisfies the legal test.
The case should be read with Carter, which held that a four-section park home requiring dismantling before transport was not a caravan, and Wyre Forest, which confirms the importance of the statutory definition.
Judgment source
Planning Geek has checked the complete High Court judgment, case number CO 2491/2011, delivered by HHJ Waksman QC on 12th August 2011. A local protected copy is available below for Gold members.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.