[Bev123]

Page being up dated so will keep checking.
It's just so nice to talk to someone who's been through similar problems.
Have been looking to see if can see how long a tempory/portable building can be in situ?
Know of a horsey friend who's had her mobile shelters sited in same spot for over 16years tho is is with a different council x

[Bev123]

Don't want permission of residence I like my comfort too much an living in the middle of a field during a cold n wet winter does not appeal in the slightest to me.
Have 3 elderly relatives I look after 5 mins from where I live an can walk if ever an emergency so living in a field holds no prospect to me lol x

[mart6]

If field shelters or any building that has been up more than 4 years and you have proof ie dated photos,google earth can be handy,they can not win a enforcement action and become exempt.
Otherwise move them every 6 months and take dated photos may come in handy.
Some councils dont take action some do
In my case it was the only thing they never mentioned , but they had been up for years anyway.
What livestock do you have on site at the present time ?

[Bev123]

8 mini horses
Mini mule
18 geese
10 turkeys
23 ducks
18 guinea fowl
23 quail
12 large fowl
9 banties
5 giant rabbits
Guard dog lol
Re homed the grumpy goat
Did have 4 pigs but now sold

[mart6]

Quite a varied collection, like it
Spent 1000s of hours researching enforcement notices and appeals while mine was ongoing.
Read 100S of appeals, and some of the councils views would have you in stitches.
Best part is it takes the final decision out the hands of the councils .

Dumb founds me how some of them get the job.
Dont get stressed and prepare for a possible long haul, maybe they will see the light if they
realise you wont back down.

[Bev123]

Cheers chuck.
Love my creatures. It's my sanctuary. After running around after me poorly elderly family it is a joy to muck out and just sit peacefully enjoying their company. Don't make a fortune at it but I tick by.
Busy making extra portable runs as have 22 Turkey eggs, 56 quail, 36 guinea fowl and the last of 3 gosling to hatch this month/beg July  So if all successful will nearly double my numbers. X

[mart6]

As with most agricultural enterprises livestock numbers rise and fall depending on the season
and business plans.
Would certainly be useful if its expanded before any enforcement action is stated imo.
If they serve a enforcement notice its needs to be appealed (They may have second thoughts  but do not count on it)
If you appeal it is around @6 month procedure once it starts,long back log.
The government planning inspector will make a site visit, to observe everything which is beneficial
because planning/enforcement officers tend to omit relevant facts imo.
Then its @ 2 months before you receive the decision

Have to admit i do enjoy watching planning/enforcement officers making themselves look foolish.

I can not point out enough that you record any future conversations inform the parties you are doing so
May be handy to have a witness present.
Imo when it becomes obvious that you are not a push over, the recollections of conversations change

[Bev123]

Will tell them and record any further visits an get a witness. Many thanks x

[Mad Goatwoman of Madeley]

Good luck.

[Bev123]

Thank you ?

[mart6]

Just to help put a few things in perspective of what you are actually allowed original building was brick stables
with attached store with permission as such

Seen plenty on the web what facilities you are allowed on site here is a top planning inspectors decision
The enforcement notice was quashed
Providing there is defined agricultural activity most things are ancillary to that
The same principles apply to agricultural use

6.  Consequently, between 2003 and 2013 the evidence suggests that the site i.e. the paddocks, the
stable block and other small shelters were a single planning unit being used for equine related
purposes. A written statement from Mrs xxxx, the daughter of the previous owner, describes how the
site was used during that period.

7.  The written ‘statement of truth’ identifies that one section of the stable was fitted out and
used by family members for seating, eating, cooking and occasionally sleeping in association with
the equine related use.  A sofa was provided for seating, table and chairs for eating, running
water and electricity were provided, a few kitchen units were installed and a wardrobe was provided
for storing changes of riding clothes. A microwave oven, kettle and toaster were provided for
making food and drinks. An electric fire was used for heating.

8.  From the information provided, the room was used predominantly at times when family members
were on site riding or looking after the ponies. For example, the parents of Mrs xxxx looked after
her young children in the room whilst she was riding or attending to other matters on site. The
family would eat together whilst they were on site. Mrs xxxx states that she would stay overnight
‘on occasions’ if a horse was ill in order to provide medication. The statement does not specify
how often this was but the term ‘on occasions’ suggests relatively infrequent use and that any
overnight stays were dictated by a need to care for sick animals.

9.  Although the statement is not a statutory declaration no contrary evidence has been presented
that would lead me to doubt that version of events.  On the balance of the evidence presented it
seems to me that the use of the room was ancillary to the primary use of the stables and adjacent
land for the keeping of ponies. To my mind, the use of a separate room away from animals to provide
relatively warm shelter, an area to change clothes, or to eat meals is not unexpected or
unreasonable if occupants were on site for any length of time.

ww.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate            2



Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/15/xxxxxx

There was a clear functional relationship between the uses described and the main equine related
use.

10. Consequently, the evidence before me suggests that the stables and associated land were used
for the equine related purposes between 2003 and 2013. The use of the accommodation within the end
room of the stables was ancillary to the primary use of the planning unit which was a single use
covering the stables and associated land.

PS

Take a look at this it was only @1 acre plot in council adorning and he had a smooth ride

[Bev123]

Thank you.
I have no buildings of brick or stone. Only walk in coops and biggest shed is 8x8. But I can see what you are getting at. During the summer an even winter when not too back my 4 yo grandson comes up to help with the chickens. Has his own little trio an the goat used to be his lol x

[Perfect Ponies]

I feel your pain - Hope there may be something of use in the following : I have just managed to get a Certificate of Lawfulness for my caravan which I use on my land. I keep horses -  It took alot but found using the following as proof to show my caravan and other structures mainly sheds had been in situ without a break for more than 10 years as required by planning enforcment  - by using google earth, photos, and I had locals write letters in support with time scale of knowledge ie moving in to the village date etc, plus asked suppliers & those who had been on the land to do work for me ie topping, muck heap removal, hayman, farrier to write and confirm the caravan had been in place everytime they had visited to deliver /work & had tea! I also used suppliers invoices to prove timescale of their knowledge of my land/stables. I also offered an affidavite via my solicitor - I made a folder of evidence and presented it to Enforcement. I also kept a diary of all phone calls etc including name/time/date what was said (also went in folder) Stay strong & good Luck

[mart6]

You need to read the attachment below page 3
Appeal court case covering caravans and agricultural use for storage and rest room
 Wealden District Council V Secretary of State & Colin Day 7/12/1988
There is a precedent set in law re caravan use for storage  and rest room for agricultural  use
quote  it to the council planning officer and enforcement officer
and say if he is happy to waste tax payers money continue
IMO that is why planning are denying its agricultural use of land

Send link to council then sit back
http://swarb.co.uk/wealden-district-council-v-secretary-of-state-for-environment-and-colin-day-ca-1988/

[mart6]

This will cover the horse box imo if it is used for storage and rest room and any other caravans so used
Council appealed planning inspector decision quashing the enforcement notice, and lost 

Also field shelters only need to be movable helps if you have proof, next door moves a 24ft x12ft with ropes and landrover and a couple of spars to brace it, just puts rollers under it  (fence posts}

Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Colin Day: CA 1988


References: (1988) JPL 268, [1988] 08 EG 112
Coram: Ralph Gibson LJ
Ratio: Land was in an area designated to be of outstanding natural beauty. The Council sought the removal of a caravan used to provide weatherproof storage for cattle food and shelter for the farmer, saying that this amounted to a material change of use. The inspector quashed the Enforcement Notice on the grounds that as the caravan was used for animal feed preparation and shelter. Such uses were ancillary to the agriculture use, and stationing the caravan was not a material change. The Council now contended that the caravan amounted to a new primary use of the land, and was not incidental to the existing use, that the use now was a mixed use, and that the change was material because the caravan was objectionable viusually.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The court should consider not just the placing of the caravan, but also the purpose of its being so placed. The use was incidental to the main purpose of use of the land and so was exempted under section 22(2)(e), and therefore there had been no material change of use.
Ralph Gibson LJ said that he: ‘had sympathy with the contention of the council that it was both surprising and a reasonable ground for concern if the occupier of agriculture land was free under Planning Law to station at any point upon his land one of more caravans, intended to serve the same purpose as farm buildings, regardless of the harm which the Planning Authority reasonably considered would be caused by the presence and appearance of the caravan in the place where they were stationed. ‘ However, such reflections upon apparent gaps in the extent of the planning control could not affect the construction of the Act because, the meaning of the word there used in the context of the Act as a whole was clear . . . the Section . . . operated where there was ‘use of any land for the purposes of agriculture’. The word ‘agriculture’ was defined [to include] a list of agriculture activities among which were for example, fruit growing and the breeding and keeping of live stock. No reliance was placed by Mr Burrell [counsel for the council] upon any arguments to the effect that Section [55(2)(e)] could only apply to use of land for the purposes of one of the listed agricultural activities and not for use for the purposes of activities ancillary or incidental to those listed agriculture activities. He was right not to rely on upon any such arguments. The definition was an inclusionary definition. Construed in its context there was ‘use of land for the purposes of agriculture’ where the land was used for activities in direct furtherance of agricultural activity.
The stationing of the caravan on the land was without doubt for the purposes of agriculture . . . a typical caravan . . . was said Mr. Burrell, designed for human habitation as a residence and therefore the stationing of it on land could not be ordinarily incidental to a primary agricultural use. It was assumed in that submission that the degree of connection between the land use in question and the primary agricultural use, was accurately expressed by the phrase ‘ordinarily incidental’ if the land use was held to be ‘for the purposes of agriculture’ within Section [55(2)9e)] Ralph Gibson LJ assumed that this was so but it was not necessary to decide whether the connection expressed by the meaning contained in that phrase would in every case be necessary for this purpose . . . there was nothing in the nature of the typical residential caravan . . . which rendered the use of such a caravan incapable of being properly regarded as ordinarily incidental to the agricultural use of land , that was to say as an ordinary piece of equipment for stationing upon land and for use when so stationed for the purpose of agriculture.’
Statutes: Town and Country Planning Act 1971 22(2)(e)