Skip to content

Person contracts crane services to demonstrate that the storage structure is transient, not permanent

Council-employed crane demonstrates temporary nature of Steve Holden's shed to dispute Caravans Act classification

Man employs a crane to elevate a shed, demonstrating its non-permanent nature
Man employs a crane to elevate a shed, demonstrating its non-permanent nature

Person contracts crane services to demonstrate that the storage structure is transient, not permanent

In the seaside town of Hastings, a seemingly ordinary shed has become the centre of a heated debate. The shed, owned by Mr. Steve Holden, has found itself at the heart of a legal battle with Hastings Borough Council over its classification and whether it requires planning permission.

Mr. Holden, in an effort to prove the shed's moveability, hired a crane to lift it off the ground. The crane successfully managed to lift the shed, and Mr. Holden expressed his intention to move it onto a lorry. This move is intended to demonstrate to the council that the shed should qualify as a temporary structure under the Caravans Act.

The shed, built by Peter Bucklitsch, is a single frame with no foundations, making it moveable by nature. Mr. Bucklitsch argues that if the council's action against Mr. Holden goes ahead, it could affect people with caravans in their drives who would then require planning permission. He maintains that the shed is a 'chattel,' a personal possession under the law.

However, Hastings Borough Council has stated that the shed is in breach of planning control and has requested its removal. The council's stance is that the shed, despite its moveable nature, is a permanent structure. Mr. Holden, on the other hand, claims that his shed complies with the Caravans Act, even though it doesn't have wheels.

Mr. Holden's application for retrospective planning permission for the shed was refused, and a subsequent enforcement order was made, giving him three months to remove the shed. The Planning Inspectorate dismissed an appeal against this refusal.

The council is open to discussion with Mr. Holden regarding the matter but has not revoked the enforcement order. Mr. Holden has the right to appeal against the enforcement action taken by the council. In a recent statement, Mr. Holden added that Mr. Bucklitsch had assured him the shed did not need planning permission.

The situation has sparked a wider debate about the interpretation of the Caravans Act and planning permissions for moveable structures. Mr. Holden's case serves as a reminder for homeowners and local authorities alike about the complexities of such issues and the importance of clear communication and understanding.

Read also:

Latest