Smallholder loses Borders enforcement appeal

by DOUG COLLIE

The siting of a static caravan and a poly tunnel on land near Newcastleton in the Scottish Borders breached regulations, according to a government planning reporter who has dismissed an appeal against an enforcement order imposed by the local authority.

Amanda Hale claimed in her written appeal to reporter Tammy Swift-Adams that she bought the 4.5 acre holding near Yethouse Farm to develop as a smallholding, "a perfectly peaceable and lawful undertaking". There had been a caravan positioned on the land for at least a decade, she said.

The appellant [Ms Hale] believed the caravan constituted 'permitted development', and in her view the poly tunnel was not a building therefore was also out with planning regulations. 

In her appeal statement Ms Hale wrote: "I have never intended to be permanently resident there. My brother, visiting from his home in the Philippines, did use the caravan during his stay. This was short term and temporary".

She added that she was distressed that Scottish Borders Council had not made the effort to hold a discussion with her about their concerns before issuing the enforcement order.

But in her Decision Notice, Ms Swift-Adams states: "There is no persuasive evidence before me of the caravan being in agricultural use. The appellant has submitted a holding management plan (“the holding plan”) that suggests sheep as an appropriate choice of livestock for the holding and states that lambs or lambing ewes would need shelter in the event of extreme weather. However, a polytunnel has been erected for that specific purpose. 

"The appellant does not suggest the caravan is also used for that purpose, or any of the other agricultural activities including those referred to in the holding plan. The holding plan refers to a welfare cabin, which I understand to be the caravan, but only notes its existence. The appellant states they use the caravan as such, but does not substantiate that or explain why they consider that siting a caravan on the land for this purpose is permitted development."

Based on the evidence, the reporter did not consider the caravan in this case amounted to seasonal accommodation. The appellant’s evidence stated that peak workload times for sheep management range across a period from March to December (ten months) rather than being limited to a particular season. Ms Hale did not claim to employ seasonal agricultural workers, or that the caravan was removed from site in between any bouts of work.

Ms Swift-Adams adds: "Furthermore, during my site investigation I found the caravan, and the part of the land on which it is sited, to be more residential in appearance than agricultural. The timber cladding gives the caravan a log cabin effect. 

"It is surrounded by chattels that have more in keeping with residential use than agriculture, including a small garden shed, garden-style seating and several domestic-scale planters. The field gate for this part of the site was ornamented with plastic flowers and a vintage kettle. Such decorations may not themselves be unlawful, but I do find them indicative of the caravan being used for residential purposes."

The reporter also concluded that the poly tunnel on Ms Hale's land constituted a building which had been assembled on site.

Her Decision Notice ends: "The appellant has submitted photographs of other caravans on land in the area, some of which I saw on the way to my site inspection. However, the existence of these other caravans, whether they are lawful or not and whether or not they have been the subject of other enforcement notices, does not affect the lawfulness of this caravan. 

"For the reasons given above, I find that the siting of the static caravan, the erection of the polytunnel and the engineering earthwork do constitute breaches of planning control and that the appeal fails. I have considered all of the matters raised but find none that would lead me to alter my conclusion that the enforcement notice should be upheld."