Over Taylor Biggs

In protecting smokers from the elements (predominantly rain) compliant structures essentially must have no built elevations, front or back or to sides.  They can have a roof but no windows, or doors.  They can be placed up against a wall but cannot be joined to that wall or the structure of which the wall forms part.

If that were not enough, does such a structure need planning permission?  Such difficulties have recently been reported.  The landlord at the White Horse Inn Washford, Somerset was served with a planning enforcement notice for a shelter on the banks of a river that ran through the pub's beer garden.

Perhaps expecting a planning complaint, the pub landlord had built the structure of wood, open-ended, with a pitched roof on upright columns.  It had a wooden floor that was bolted to steel rods, with a towing fixture at each end.  It was placed on wheels.  However, for stability, the columns had to be anchored to timbers set in the ground.

The landlord alleged that the shelter was mobile (as it could be towed) and therefore not a building, for which planning permission would be required.

The Planning Inspector was not convinced.  The anchors meant that the structure was more permanent and, on evidence, had not really moved frequently, if at all.  Planning permission was required.

But, would it be granted?  In spite of there being no financial evidence, the Inspector was prepared to hold that a smoking shelter was important to the viability of a pub and that pubs had an important role in the community, particularly in a rural economy.  He was therefore willing to grant permission.

This suggests an argument could be made for similar considerations in other localities and even urban areas.  However, publicans would be advised to prepare a detailed financial case to show the dependency on those who opt to smoke and at a pub.

Clients of this firm have been on the receiving end of smokers' shelters, indicating a high level of sensitivity.  Without any permission (and opportunistically whilst the premises Manager was away on holiday) the operators of a nightclub that adjoined a Shopping Centre trespassed on to a fire escape from the Centre and erected a considerable wooden structure with a flat Perspex roof. 

Regardless of planning criteria, the Centre owners' concern was interference with the route of escape.   To this the nightclub operators pointed to the fact that a shelter could have no sides and that the means of escape could still be maintained and without infringing health and safety requirements.

Relationships between the owners' representatives and the nightclub operator soon deteriorated and an application for an injunction to remove the structure was under consideration.  The situation remains unresolved.  Ironically, perhaps, the local planning authority was unwilling to get involved, even though part of the Centre comprises a listed building.