In the current housing crisis, home-owners are finding creative ways to create additional living space, including to accommodate ageing parents and young adults who might otherwise struggle to access suitable housing. Modular and pre-fabricated homes and caravans are increasingly attractive options. However, the distinction between a ‘building’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act) and a ‘moveable dwelling’ under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (LG Act) is not always clear.
That question arose in Hoang v Fairfield City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1473 (Hoang), where a container and trailer had been craned over the applicant’s house and placed into the rear yard. The container then unfolded into a two-bedroom dwelling, and was connected to sewer, water, and electricity. It remained attached to the trailer, but rested on brick piers. Cabinetry and kitchen/bathroom facilities were installed.
Council issued a development control order under the EP&A Act alleging that the structure was an unauthorised secondary dwelling which required development consent under the EP&A Act, and ordered the home-owner to demolish or remove the structure.
The critical question was whether the structure was a ‘building’ for the purposes of the EP&A Act, for which development consent was required, or instead a ‘caravan’ and therefore a ‘moveable dwelling’ governed by the LG Act regime.
Why the distinction matters
The EP&A Act definition of ‘building’ expressly excludes a manufactured home, moveable dwelling, or associated structure within the meaning of the LG Act. The LG Act defines a ‘moveable dwelling’ to include a caravan (inter alia). ‘Caravan’ is defined within the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2021 (NSW) (Regulations) as ‘a moveable dwelling designed to be capable of being registered as a trailer’.
A ‘building’ is subject to the EP&A Act’s planning approval and certification framework, while a ‘moveable dwelling’ falls under the LG Act, and may, in some circumstances, be installed without separate council approval.
The Court’s approach
The Court accepted that the structure appeared to be a caravan: it was a dwelling, physically moveable, and designed to be registrable as a trailer in its folded form. However, the Court found (at [62]) that case authority required that the structure be ‘readily and frequently moveable’. Although this structure could be relocated, doing so would require the removal of fitted cabinetry, disconnection of sewer and water services, removal of ceiling ridge capping and rivets, the folding and reconfiguration of the structure, and craning it over the applicant’s house.
The structure was accordingly not a ‘moveable dwelling’, was not excluded from the EP&A Act definition of ‘building’, and thus required development consent.
For this reason, the Court upheld the development control order, and required the applicant to demolish and remove the structure within 28 days.
Key takeaway
The decision highlights a growing tension between modern methods of housing construction and delivery, and legislation developed around conventional distinctions between permanent buildings and mobile accommodation.
Expandable homes, tiny homes, modular dwellings, and other pre-fabricated products can arrive substantially complete, sit on trailers or chassis, and remain technically relocatable while nevertheless functioning as permanent homes.
Hoang demonstrates that neither the manufacturer’s description of a product as a ‘caravan’, nor the presence of wheels, a trailer chassis, VIN, or theoretical capacity for relocation, will necessarily determine its legal character.
Characterisation instead requires consideration of the structure’s size and design, how it is transported, the steps involved in moving it, the extent of assembly or fit-out undertaken on-site, its physical supports, its connections to services, and, ultimately, whether it is genuinely ‘readily and frequently moveable’.
For proponents, councils, and manufacturers, Hoang reinforces the need to assess at an early stage whether a product is genuinely ‘readily and frequently moveable’, or whether its installation, servicing, and intended use more properly characterise it as a ‘building’ requiring development consent under the EP&A Act.