Background
Fairfield City Council issued a development control order requiring Thanh Vuong Hoang to demolish and remove an expandable, two-bedroom structure at his Fairfield property, along with its brick footings and utility connections. The structure arrived on a trailer in a folded container form, was craned into the rear yard, opened out, fitted with a kitchen and bathroom, supported on brick piers, and connected to sewer, water and electricity.
Hoang appealed, arguing that the structure was a caravan and therefore a “moveable dwelling,” excluded from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 definition of a building. He said it was registrable as a trailer and would be used by his mother, a member of his household. The Council contended that it was in substance a secondary dwelling requiring development consent.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Sherry held that the structure was not a moveable dwelling or caravan for the relevant statutory purposes. Although it could physically be disconnected, folded up and craned away, it was not designed to be readily and frequently moved. Its fitted kitchen, riveted ceiling components, utility connections, brick-pier support and intended operation as a secondary dwelling showed it was designed to remain on the site.
It was therefore a “building” under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and required development consent, which had not been obtained. The Court found the demolition and removal order substantiated. However, it allowed the appeal to modify the order: the Council lacked power to require Hoang to contact an officer for an inspection, and the compliance period was extended to 28 days from the orders.
Key Takeaways
- A trailer-mounted structure is not necessarily a caravan or moveable dwelling.
- Whether a structure is “moveable” turns on whether it is designed to be readily and frequently relocated, not merely whether it can be moved after disassembly.
- Connections to services, site supports and fitted components may point to a structure being a building requiring development consent.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the portability analysis in prior New South Wales cases to expandable trailer-based accommodation. It confirms that formal trailer registrability does not determine planning status where the structure is installed and used as a lasting self-contained dwelling.
It also illustrates the Court’s Class 1 power to re-exercise the Council’s functions and modify an enforcement order while retaining its substantive removal requirements.