Neville James Carter and Audrey Christine Carter v Secretary of State for the Environment and Carrick District Council [1994] 1 WLR 1212

The point in plain English: A structure must have the required mobility as a structure. A four-section park home which had to be dismantled before it could be transported was not a caravan within section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

What the Court of Appeal decided

Mr and Mrs Carter owned a smallholding at Higher Crescent Farm, Penhallow, near Truro. An established use certificate had recognised the stationing of a caravan for human habitation. They replaced the original caravan with a larger park home delivered to the site in four prefabricated sections. The sections were bolted together, the completed structure was manoeuvred onto concrete blocks, and it had no wheels or subframe.

The issue was whether that completed park home was nevertheless a “caravan” within section 29(1) of the 1960 Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Carters’ appeal. The statutory definition required the structure itself to be capable of being moved from one place to another. It was not enough that the component parts could be transported after dismantling.

Russell LJ treated the design-for-human-habitation requirement and the mobility requirement as applying to the same structure. In other words, the whole unit which provides the accommodation must possess the necessary mobility. On the facts, the four-section park home did not.

Why the case still matters

Carter remains a useful authority when deciding whether a mobile home, chalet or specialist trailer falls within the statutory caravan definition. The label used by the owner or manufacturer is not decisive. The actual structure and its ability to be moved matter.

The separate twin-unit provisions in section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 mean that a structure made in no more than two separately constructed sections can still qualify if, when assembled, it is physically capable of being moved by road and satisfies the other statutory requirements. Carter is particularly important where a unit consists of more sections, or where moving it would first require dismantling the structure itself.

For film productions this is relevant to large artist, welfare or facilities trailers. A production description such as “trailer”, “green room” or “unit” does not settle the legal classification. See our guides to caravan planning, when a caravan can also be a building and Class E commercial filmmaking.

Judgment source

Planning Geek has checked the complete seven-page reported Court of Appeal decision supplied for this case, including the report at [1994] 2 EGLR 194. A local protected copy is available below for Gold members.