"Complies With The Caravan Act" - Why ?

[V8RX7]

If under PD you can build in your garden - why do so many sellers of Log cabins state that they comply with the caravan act ?

You can't stick a caravan in a field without consent so what am I missing ?

Where are they putting them ?

[Equus]

You can keep a "caravan" (as defined under the Caravan Act) within the curtilage of a domestic property, regardless of its location, overall height or PD rights.

Perhaps more importantly, if an outbuilding is used for sleeping in, it falls within Building Regulations (regardless of its size) and needs to be constructed and insulated to certain standards, which most log cabins are not capable of complying with. If it's a 'caravan', it does not need to meet those construction standards.

Obviously, there's also the situation where someone buys one of these things to site on a 'park homes' development, which will only have Planning Permission for the siting of 'caravans', not permanent buildings.

[V8RX7]

Thanks

[21TonyK]

Not come across this loop hole before. Does this mean you could build structure yourself as long as it is possible to move it. ie. two sections or even more obvious a steel chassis as a base?

[Equus]

21TonyK said:

Not come across this loop hole before. Does this mean you could build structure yourself as long as it is possible to move it. ie. two sections or even more obvious a steel chassis as a base?

Yes.

[21TonyK]

Equus said:

Yes.

Interesting. Thanks.

[paulwirral]

I seem to remember the grand designs guy doing something along these lines once ?

[DonkeyApple]

Hence shepherds huts. For those who want to use a caravan on their land but haven’t the balls to cope with the total social isolation that would ensue.

[rfsteel]

I presume a covenant on a dometic property trumps the Caravan Act, as my domestic property has the following covenant from 1929;

Property Deeds said:

A Conveyance of the land in this title and other land dated 7 May 1929
made between (1) ######### (Vendor) and (2) ############ (Purchaser)
contains the following covenants:-

COVENANT by Purchaser or the persons deriving title under him not to
erect or bring upon the property thereby conveyed or permit or suffer
to be erected or brought or to remain thereon any hut caravan or house
on wheels and not to do or suffer to be done thereon any act or thing
which might be

[DKL]

Equus said:

21TonyK said:

Not come across this loop hole before. Does this mean you could build structure yourself as long as it is possible to move it. ie. two sections or even more obvious a steel chassis as a base?

Yes.

I recall Kevin Mcleod doing exactly that in one of his earlier series. He built a cabin in a field and put wheels on it and promptly buried the lot! The whole idea was that it was "movable" , just not easily.

[Equus]

rfsteel said:

I presume a covenant on a domestic property trumps the Caravan Act

Yes, although Planning and a covenant are two separate things entirely,

The Local Authority Planning Department has no interest or powers to enforce a covenant - a covenant is a civil matter, and can only be enforced by the person it is in favour of bringing legal action themselves. It is nothing to do with the Planning legislation that gives the Planners their legal powers.

So if you're looking at a restrictive covenant from 1929, the question to ask yourself is, who would enforce it, and how likely is it that they will do so?

If the answers are 'dunno', and 'not very', then you might decide to just disregard it. You can get insurance policies to cover yourself, in case someone does turn up with a court order.

Edited by Equus on Saturday 24th February 15:11

[Equus]

DKL said:

I recall Kevin Mcleod doing exactly that in one of his earlier series. He built a cabin in a field and put wheels on it and promptly buried the lot! The whole idea was that it was "movable" , just not easily.

Do bear in mind that the rights to keep a 'caravan' on a piece of land are different, if it's just an open field.

If it's within the curtilage of a domestic property, you'd allowed to keep it because in legal terms it its defined as a 'chattel', not a structure, and you're allowed to keep chattels at a domestic property without restriction.

In an open field (agricultural land), there are no such rights, and things become more complicated.

Kevin McLoud is a (albeit a reasonably likeable one), who doesn't know his arse from his elbow... and I speak from personal experience of the man.

Edited by Equus on Sunday 25th February 08:18

[trev540]

you must be aware that you can put a caravan, transit van, couple of manky dogs, tarmac and any old rubbish you can find in any field or private land that you want if you say your of the travelling type. Police, planners will run away as fast as their little legs will carry them.

[DKL]

Equus said:

DKL said:

I recall Kevin Mcleod doing exactly that in one of his earlier series. He built a cabin in a field and put wheels on it and promptly buried the lot! The whole idea was that it was "movable" , just not easily.

Do bear in mind that the rights to keep a 'caravan' on a piece of land are different, if it's just an open field.

If it's within the curtilage of a domestic property, you'd allowed to keep it because in legal terms it its defined as a 'chattel', not a structure, and you're allowed to keep chattels at a domestic property without restriction.

In an open field (agricultural land), there are no such rights, and things become more complicated.

Kevin McLeod is a (albeit a reasonably likeable one), who doesn't know his arse from his elbow... and I speak from personal experience of the man.

I'm sure the rules differ depending on the land designation. I recall he said he owned the land but iirc it wasn't part of his home curtilage but not far away either - so yes a field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McCloud%27s_Ma...
He lived in the next village across from me at the time in Somerset. I recall there was some discussion locally about whether he'd be be better off sticking to lights.
No idea if he does now, wiki seems to think so.
Description of KM seems a little harsh...

[Tahiti]

rfsteel said:

I presume a covenant on a dometic property trumps the Caravan Act, as my domestic property has the following covenant from 1929;

Property Deeds said:

A Conveyance of the land in this title and other land dated 7 May 1929
made between (1) ######### (Vendor) and (2) ############ (Purchaser)
contains the following covenants:-

COVENANT by Purchaser or the persons deriving title under him not to
erect or bring upon the property thereby conveyed or permit or suffer
to be erected or brought or to remain thereon any hut caravan or house
on wheels and not to do or suffer to be done thereon any act or thing
which might be

As has been said, yes. A bit like someone could dig under a fair few back gardens if they so desire due to old mining rights.

However, when we lived in a previous house, we had a number of restrictions, and on trying to contact the company that owned the land and stated the covenants at the time, we discovered that they folded some years back. The trail went cold after that. All the neighbours ignored the covenants through a variety of having no choice, and not giving a fig!

[Equus]

DKL said:

Description of KM seems a little harsh...

I did say he's a likeable!

What you've got to remember is that he studied History of art and Architecture at Cambridge. I was offered a place at Cambridge studying pure Architecture, but rejected it because I wanted to actually design buildings, whereas Cambridge, at the time (still after McCloud would have attended), taught Architecture mainly as a subject to allow young gentlemen of quality to appreciate classical buildings while doing their Grand Tour of Europe, in between shagging floozies and getting pissed, and so their course lacked the technical content I was looking for.

McCloud then went on to become a theatre designer.... his knowledge of real-world architectural design and construction technology is slender, and his knowledge of practical legislation like the Planning system is nil, but people (including McCloud, who is beginning to believe his own press) assume, because of Grand Designs, he's an expert in both. He's not - he's an interior designer cum art critic.

His housing company, HAB, made the most dreadful amateur fk-ups in its early days - I was living around the corner from one of their early schemes, in Stroud, at the time, and the provided us with much entertainment at the mainstream housebuilder I was working for. I later encountered him in person on Grand Designs, which I why I say he's likeable. Nothing against the fella, or his TV programme - it's good entertainment.