When a Mobile Home becomes a Building...

A recently published CIL Appeal decision (Ref: 1884358) from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) explored whether or not a planning permission for 'the permanent retention of a rural worker's dwelling' should be chargeable to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). References used are to the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 as amended, unless otherwise stated.

Unfortunately, for the owner/farmer the appeal was dismissed and CIL held payable. Regrettably due to the very heavy redaction of CIL Appeal decisions the precise details and quantum of CIL charged are not publicly available. E³ Consulting did not act in this matter and comment on the case to highlight some of the issues and consequences of this decision.

The first planning permission (P1) was for the ‘siting of a temporary worker’s dwelling’ and a condition stated the mobile home be removed and the land restored to its original condition on or before three years from the date of permission. CIL was not chargeable - this is because 'time limited' permissions are not a planning permission within Reg.5. Additionally, due the redactions we don't know if the relevant Local Planning Authority (LPA) at this earlier time had adopted CIL.

A second permission (P2) was sought upon expiry of P1 for ‘the change of use of land for the temporary siting of a rural worker’s dwelling’. A planning condition was again applied, stating the mobile home be removed and the land restored to its original condition on or before three years from the date of permission. Again no CIL applied.

The case applies due to the third permission (P3) for the 'permanent retention of a rural worker’s dwelling' and thus gave rise to a CIL charge as the LPA considered the asset now subject to a retrospective planning had no longer retained its mobility to be considered a caravan. This was because an extension had been built on one side of the mobile home and incorporated concrete foundations, brickwork and was physically attached to the caravan. To the Charging Authority - this turned it into a permanent 'building'.

The agent acting for the appellant argued that CIL should be zero - citing two grounds:

1. The development is not chargeable as the mobile home does not constitute a ‘building’ for the purposes of CIL. It is a mobile home by virtue of its impermanence and mobility.

2. If the development was to be treated as a new dwelling or building for CIL purposes, the chargeable floor area (measured as Gross Internal Area (GIA) in accordance with the RICS Code of Measuring Practice 6th Ed) satisfies the existing lawful ‘in use’ test and the existing GIA should be offset, resulting in a liability of £0.

What determines a 'building' is a regular feature in CIL and planning law and the case to which the matter can sometime rely upon is that known as The Skerritts Test derived from the ruling in Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (No 2) [2000] 2 PLR 102, is a building.  This test explores three elements - Size, Permanence and Physical attachment to the ground. The Appointed Person (the VOA decision maker) held that the extension had ultimately made the combined unit a permanent dwelling and thus a building and s owas in fact chargeable.

Whilst there was also mention of the Minor Development Exemption (MDE) (Reg.42) that takes permission outside of CIL where the new GIA being created is less than 100m², this was consider a 'moot point' and irrelevant on account of the permission creating a new dwelling - a factor that denies MDE under Reg.42(2) where a development comprises 'one or more dwellings'.

Turning to the 'offset' ground, this was clearly contrary to the explicit wording of the Regulations at Schedule 1, Part 1, 1(10) that states very clearly that a “building” does not include — (iii) a building for which planning permission was granted for a limited period.

Hence the AP quickly dismissed this aspect deciding in favour of the Charging Authority and maintaining the CIL charge - whatever cost it was to the farmer.

We regularly see permissions involving multiple and overlapping planning permissions and these can be extremely complicated to resolve. Great care is needed to ensure that commencement is not inadvertently triggered - potentially denying further challenges, relief or exemptions, as may be applicable.

This decision contrasts with the VOA CIL Appeal decision published in November 2024 (VOA Ref: 1852169) that held the ‘Erection of an agricultural building with ancillary staff welfare facilities and workshop' was not a residential dwelling - that was used by and so was not chargeable to CIL. This case involved a restrictive Condition to the permission that restricted occupancy to four months per year and only by local, agricultural workers to prohibit the accommodation from being a ‘residential dwelling’ - that the CA in that case did not limit the unit being a dwelling as they considered this to be 'akin to an agricultural workers dwelling, albeit to be occupied on a seasonal basis'.

These cases emphasise the importance of careful scrutiny of the individual case facts to determine what CIL may, or may not, apply.

If you would like to discuss any property tax matters or specific queries relating to the above CIL Appeals/Decisions, then please do contact the team on 0345 230 6450 or [email protected]. We look forward to speaking with you soon.