R (Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council & Anor [2012] EWHC 2161 (Admin)
The point in plain English: Something does not cease to be planning development merely because it can be moved. Large mobile or temporary structures can still be buildings, structures or other operational development, and their environmental effects may need to be assessed cumulatively.
What happened
The case concerned large mobile poultry units used for duck rearing on agricultural land in the Cotswolds AONB and Green Belt. The council concluded that the units were chattels rather than development and therefore did not require environmental impact assessment. It also granted permission for a stock pond following a screening opinion which considered only limited cumulative effects.
What the High Court decided
Lang J allowed both judicial review claims. The council had taken too narrow an approach to section 55. The poultry units were substantial in size and weight, could remain in their fields for years, and their mobility did not prevent them from being capable of amounting to buildings, structures or other operations.
The council had also approached EIA too narrowly. Mobile installations can fall within the scope of environmental assessment, and the screening of the stock pond had failed properly to consider cumulative effects with other development on the site.
Why Valley Action Group matters
The judgment is useful when dealing with mobile agricultural structures and other installations that sit somewhere between a chattel and a conventional building. It also underlines that EIA screening must consider the project in its proper environmental context rather than artificially isolating one component.
The statutory EIA regime considered in 2012 has since changed, so current regulations must always be checked.
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.