HomeCase Studies › Mobile Home on Green Belt Land

A Mobile Home, a Garden, and the Edge of the Green Belt

A homeowner placed a mobile home on land next to their main dwelling, just outside what the council considers to be the residential curtilage. The council said it wasn't permitted development. The land sits within the Green Belt — one of the most heavily protected categories in English planning policy.

🏢 LPA · Reigate & Banstead Borough Council
📑 Mobile Home · Green Belt
⚠ Status · Submitted

The starting point

Our client owns a rural property where the main dwelling sits on Grade 4 agricultural land covered, in its entirety, by a Green Belt designation. Adjacent to the house, the client placed a mobile home for additional living and ancillary use. From the homeowner's point of view this felt like an entirely reasonable use of land they already owned, in a location that was visibly part of the same residential setting as the main house. The council, however, took a different view: in their assessment, the mobile home was outside the curtilage of the main dwelling and therefore did not fall within permitted development. An informal conversation made clear that planning consent was needed.

Why the Green Belt is the toughest planning context in England

Green Belt policy is unusual in that it works in reverse. Most planning categories ask whether a proposal is acceptable on its merits. Green Belt policy starts from the position that almost any new development is, by definition, inappropriate — and substantial weight must be given to any harm it would cause. To overcome that, an applicant has to demonstrate "very special circumstances" that clearly outweigh the harm.

The framework we are working inside

  • The whole of the site is covered by Green Belt designation under both national and local policy.
  • The National Planning Policy Framework treats new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate, with limited exceptions for agriculture, forestry, certain recreation uses, replacement buildings, and limited infilling.
  • The Reigate & Banstead Core Strategy reinforces this with Policy CS3, refusing inappropriate development unless very special circumstances clearly outweigh the harm.
  • The mobile home does not sit comfortably within any of the standard exception categories.

This is, frankly, the hardest end of the retrospective planning market. We were honest with the client up front: there is no version of this case that gets approval easily, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. What we can do is build the most coherent, evidenced argument possible and put it in front of the council.

The planning case

The case has two angles worth exploring. The first is the curtilage question: there is a legitimate technical argument to be had about where the residential curtilage of the main dwelling ends and where the open Green Belt begins. The mobile home sits in a transitional area immediately adjacent to the existing residential use, and a careful site analysis can make a real argument that the location is functionally part of the residential setting rather than an incursion into open countryside.

The second is the openness question. Green Belt policy protects the openness of the land — the sense of unbuilt countryside — and a mobile home is, by its nature, a removable, low-impact structure. Compared with a permanent building of the same footprint, a mobile home leaves the underlying land effectively unaltered: it can be moved, the soil is intact beneath it, no foundations have been laid, no permanent structure introduced. That isn't a knock-out argument, but it is a meaningful one.

The strategy

We prepared and submitted a full retrospective application that does several things in parallel:

  • Sets out a careful argument on curtilage, supported by site plans and photographs showing the mobile home's relationship to the main dwelling and its boundaries
  • Engages directly with the openness question, evidencing why a mobile home has minimal impact on the underlying character of the Green Belt
  • Frames the very special circumstances argument honestly — setting out the personal, practical and land management reasons the structure was placed where it was — without overclaiming
  • Provides the full validation pack of drawings the council needs to determine the application: site location plan, block plans, floor plans, elevations and a planning statement

We also discussed with the client the realistic range of outcomes: from outright approval (unlikely on Green Belt land of this kind) through to a temporary or personal consent that recognises the practical situation while protecting the Green Belt designation in the long term.

The drawings

Alongside the planning statement, we prepared and submitted a full set of scaled architectural drawings — site location plan, block plan, and existing and proposed elevations and floor plans where relevant — giving the case officer a clear, accurate and measurable picture of the development to assess against policy.

The honest reality of Green Belt cases

Green Belt retrospective applications are some of the hardest cases in the planning system. We don't pretend otherwise. What we promise is a clear-eyed view of the prospects, an evidence-led application, and an honest conversation about what realistic outcomes look like — including the ones that fall short of full approval.

Could your case be in the same place?

If you have placed a mobile home, an outbuilding or any other structure on Green Belt land and the council has flagged it, the worst thing you can do is wait. The clock starts the moment they make contact, and the right strategy depends on facts only a Chartered Town Planner can properly read. The first conversation with us is free.

Get a Free Assessment All Case Studies

Development on Green Belt land?

This is hard territory. It needs experienced advice. Talk to a Chartered Town Planner today.