Appeal Decision Hearing and site visit held on 20 August 2014 by A U Ghafoor BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 2 January 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/C/14/2214542 Land at Highview, Longfield Road, Longfield, Gravesend DA3 7AP • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Mr John Bourne against an enforcement notice issued by Gravesham Borough Council. • The Council’s reference is 2014/00003/ENF. • The notice was issued on 27 January 2014. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the development comprising of the erection of an industrial building in the approximate position marked with black cross-hatching on the attached plan. • The requirements of the notice are to: (i) demolish the building identified by black cross-hatchings on the attached plan in its entirety (ii) remove from the land all building materials, debris and rubble arising from the compliance with requirement (i) above. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 12 weeks. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) and (d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld with a correction.

Preliminary Matters

1. The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt, to the north of Longfield Road and it is 0.39 ha. The building is portal steel frame structure some 15m long and 12m wide. Adjacent is a wide concrete apron which is used in connection with the parking of motor vehicles and HGVs.

2. It is apparent that the issued notice attacks operational development involved in the erection of a building rather than the erection of an ‘industrial building’. The building is used in connection with a business comprising the repair and servicing of heavy goods vehicles (‘HGVs’) and motor vehicles. For greater precision, the notice should state: ‘Without planning permission, the erection of a building used for the maintenance, repair and servicing of heavy goods vehicles and motor vehicles’. The appeal parties agree that the allegation can be corrected. This is because the intent behind the notice is clear and the envisagedGravesham correction will not fundamentally Borough change t heCouncil development originally enforced against. The requirements are clear and did not cause confusion. I am satisfied that no injustice is caused by correcting the allegation. I will correct the notice using the powers available to me.

3. The appeal parties were given an opportunity to comment on the High Court’s judgement in Redhill Aerodrome Limited and Secretary of State for

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

Communities and Local Government, Tandridge District Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2476 (Admin) 1.

4. The Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (‘the CS’) was adopted on 30 September 2014. The Council confirm that the development plan includes the CS and the remaining saved Policies of the Local Plan First Review 1994 (LPFR). I will take all of the comments into account.

Ground (d)

5. The onus of proof is squarely upon the appellant, Mr John Bourne. If the council has no evidence of their own, or from others, to contradict or otherwise make Mr Bourne’s version of the events less than probable, there is no good reason to dismiss the appeal, provided his evidence alone is, on the balance of probability, sufficiently precise and unambiguous.

6. Mr Bourne’s main argument is based on a very simple proposition, namely, that the building was substantially completed on or before 27 January 2010, which is the relevant date for this ground (d) appeal. He considers that the development is immune from enforcement action due to the passage of time.

7. Mr Bourne acquired the site on 28 February 1998. He contends that the building is a replacement of an existing structure, which was demolished in October 2009. The assertion is that all of the preparatory work was carried out and completed prior to the erection of the building in November 2009 by DBS Steel Contracts Limited’s (‘DBS’). The claim is that ‘…work on the erection of the replacement building commenced in the third or fourth week of November 2009. This was because I wanted the building completed so that vehicles could be repaired and serviced inside by Christmas 2009’. He claims that the whole job took three to four weeks to complete.

8. Mr Michael Emery, on behalf of DBS, states: ‘The new building was delivered in the third week of November 2009’. The assertion is that: ‘…It [the building] was met at site by our construction crew who unloaded the building, checked it off and began erection immediately. The existing/original building had been demolished by then and the foundations and floor slab installed in a satisfactory manner’. This version of events is also consistent with the declarations made by witnesses on behalf of Mr Bourne, his brother Mr Michael Bourne and employee Mr Robert McNeill. There is, however, a lack of detail regarding the nature, timings and sequence of the building work.

9. The claim is that between December 2009 and January 2010 the building was used by Mr Robert McNeill to service and maintain HGVs as it was weather tight. However, Mr Michael Emery confirms that the building was not capable of being completed around Christmas 2009, because the doors and sheeting on a side elevation required finishing. DBS returned to the site in January 2010 to complete the building work, but they also returned later on in the year to replace a damaged roller shutter door or repair an internal door. There are no specificGravesham dates given as to when theBorough building was actually Council finished. 10. The council was alerted to a potential breach of planning control on 2 March 2010 by email. Although the photograph attached to the email is not dated, it shows the erection of a steel portal frame. The complainant specifically refers

1 Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Others v Redhill Aerodrome Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1386. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

to a ‘…construction taking place at the lorry breakers yard in Longfield Road’. Subsequently, the council’s enforcement officer visited the site on 11 March 2010 and took timed and dated photographs.

11. The photographic evidence shows at least one vehicle parked inside the building, but the front elevation was incomplete and the roller shutter doors had not been fitted. The metal sheets to the side elevation required fitting at roof level. Mr Bourne asserts that the roller shutters had been fixed at this time, but were pulled up though that is contradicted by the enforcement officer. A photograph of the building’s interior does not show the roller shutter or the operating mechanism in place on 11 March 2010. It also shows incomplete cladding because the side elevation sheets needed to be fixed at roof level. This evidence seems to show that additional work needed to be done to complete the building in March 2010 which is after the relevant date. In my judgement, the building operations involved in the erection of the building had not been substantially completed on or before the relevant date because the roller shutters had not been installed, the front and side elevations had not been completed.

12. In addition to all of that, there is some doubt as to whether or not the hardstandings immediately adjacent to the building were completed by January 2010. The concrete apron is connected to the floor slab of the building. Mr Bourne claims that the surfacing had failed due to the inappropriate quality of the cement mix and weather conditions. The assertion is that the hardstanding had been replaced in spring 2010. Mr Bourne refers to an undated photograph2 and a letter from Poundhouse Limited who supplied the concrete3. The suppliers state that various amounts of concrete for major repairs were supplied to the property in November and December 2009.

13. However, the council’s evidence clearly shows that the concrete apron had not been constructed on 11 March 2010 because the timed and dated photographs do not show the hard surface adjacent to the building. This, again, undermines Mr Bourne’s assertion that the building operations involved in the construction of the whole development were substantially completed on or before the relevant date.

14. My conclusion finds support from uncertainties in the documentary evidence relating to the timings of the building operations and the claimed date of substantial completion. For example, there is a lack of detailed evidence showing the nature of the demolition work. The information about the type of operations involved in the construction of the sub-base and floor slab and concrete apron is unclear.

15. It is not uncommon for evidence to be adduced to show substantial completion of a building from other documentary information. Invoices for the sale of HGVs for the period December 2009 and January 2010 have been submitted for my evaluation. It is entirely plausible that the machines were maintained, serviced and repaired within the building while it was being completed. This is consistentGravesham with the evidence that Borough the building was partly Council being used between December 2009 and January 2010 before the contractor returned to finish the project. However, this information cannot, by itself, provide first-hand evidence of substantial completion of building operations.

2 Photograph attached to the appellant’s statement of case bundle. 3 Letter dated 18 August 2014. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

16. There is no documentary evidence showing the actual date when the building was purchased or a contract for its construction. There are no other bills showing the purchase of building materials as the council suggests. The lack of this corroboratory evidence makes comparisons between the nature and scale of the building operations and the timings very difficult. Mr Bourne told me that he has receipts but did not consider it necessary to submit them; the onus is upon him to make his own case out.

Conclusion on ground (d)

17. Drawing all of the above threads together, I find Mr Bourne’s own evidence about the nature, type and scale of the operations involved in the substantial completion of the building incomplete and lacking in detail. The totality of the evidence is imprecise and ambiguous. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the building was not substantially completed on or before 27 January 2010. This is because the roller shutter doors had not been installed, the front and side elevations needed completing and the hard standing immediately adjacent to the building had not been constructed on or before the relevant date.

18. In this appeal, the onus has not been discharged. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal on ground (d) must fail.

Ground (a)

19. The main issues are: • Firstly, whether the development would be inappropriate for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies, • Secondly, the effect of the development upon the openness of the Green Belt, • Thirdly, the impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the locality and, • Fourthly, if the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether any harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Inappropriate development

20. CS Policy CS02 sets out the strategy for the scale and distribution of development. Amongst other things, in rural areas development will be supported within those rural settlements inset from the Green Belt and defined on the Policies Map. Development outside those settlements, including affordable housing and proposals to maintain and diversify the rural economy, will be supported where it is compatible with national policies for protecting the Green Belt and policies in the CS.

21. ParagraphGravesham 80 of the Framework statesBorough that the Green Council Belt serves five purposes which are the following: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic town, and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

22. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings inside the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development unless they fall within categories of development described as exceptions. The appellant’s submission is that the building falls in the following exception: the replacement of a building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. There is no dispute that the use of the building is the same as the use of the previous building.

23. There was much discussion about the size of the previous building. This is because the council’s planning officer measured the previous structure around 1995/1996. The council maintain the previous building’s footprint was in the region of 96m2. Clearly, the new building is larger in terms of the footprint because it is 180m2. Mr Bourne disputes the figure. The assertion is that the previous building was a large structure; 13.7m by 16.8m and 4.6 to 4.9m in overall height. It comprised extensions constructed from wood and corrugated sheets as illustrated in the 2006 aerial image4. Mr Bourne considers the previous building’s footprint was in the region of 230m2. On that basis, there would be a reduction in the overall ground area as the new building is 180m2. However, that is not the end of the matter. This is because other factors, such as built volume and height, are also relevant considerations.

24. The evidence indicates that the previous building was a low-scale structure given its mono-pitch style roof and external appearance. In comparison, the new building has a pitched roof and its overall height has increased. It is 6.9m to ridge if measured from the adjacent concrete apron or 7.1m from natural ground level; it is 5.6m to eaves level. These dimensions make the building significantly taller. When the increase in the height and scale is considered in combination with the additional bulk, mass and volume, I find that the new building is materially larger than the one it replaces.

25. Mr Bourne does not claim that the development meets any of the other types of development described in paragraph 89 of the Framework. The development fails to comply with CS Policy CS02.

26. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the development constitutes inappropriate development for the purposes of the Framework and local planning policies.

Openness

27. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The building’s footprint is 180m2 and, compared to the previous demolished building, covers a reduced floor area. However, it is much taller and its bulk, massing and volume diminish the open aspect of this part of the Green Belt. Given the location, height and scale of the building and the extent of the hardstandings, I find that the development represents encroachment into the countryside. This conflicts with one of the purposesGravesham of designating land inside Borough the Green Belt; that Council is a serious planning objection.

28. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the development has a materially harmful effect upon the openness of the Green Belt.

4 Appendix 5 of the Council’s bundle of evidence. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

Character and appearance

29. Policy C4 of the LPFR refers to Special Landscape Areas, however, in the email dated 6 November 2014, the council confirm that this policy has been deleted and is no longer applicable. Of relevance is CS Policy CS19, which states, amongst other things, that new development will be visually attractive, fit for purpose and locally distinctive. It will conserve and enhance the character of the local built, historic and natural environment, integrate well with the surrounding local area. The Framework, paragraph 17, states that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

30. There are a small number of residential and commercial buildings in the immediate vicinity. However the locality is characterised by gently undulating countryside with a mix of arable and pasture land. I note that views of the building are not readily available from public vantage points. There are a row of tall coniferous trees to one side of the site’s boundary. Nonetheless, the building is visible from within the site.

31. Mr Bourne’s argument is that there are various containers stored and the site has an inherent commercial appearance. The assertion is that the site is used for the open air storage of HGVs and other vehicles. Irrespective of the commercial activities, I find the industrial-like appearance of the building is out-of-keeping with the locality given its external appearance, design, height, scale and the type of materials used in its construction. The development has a visually harmful effect upon this part of the countryside.

32. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the development has a detrimental effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, the development fails to comply with CS Policy CS19.

Other material considerations

33. The gist of the main arguments in support, underlined, will be discussed and evaluated next.

34. The site has an unrestricted and uncontrolled established commercial use: The site may have a long history of commercial activities involving the maintenance, servicing and storage of vehicles including HGVs or as a breaker’s yard. However, it does not necessarily follow that planning permission should be granted for development which visually harms the countryside. Planning conditions alone could not suitably address these concerns.

35. There was a previous commercial building: This line of argument seems to overlook the fact that the previous building has been totally demolished and a new building erected. While the previous building might have appeared out-of- keeping with the rural quality of the area, the building is significantly taller and bulkier.

36. The buildingGravesham is coloured green, isBorough shielded by tall conifers Council on one side, and additional landscaping could be required by planning condition: This argument could be made in support of any development inside the Green Belt. I am not satisfied that the building’s harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt would be mitigated by additional landscaping. The development encroaches into the countryside given the design and scale of the new building and the extent of the associated hard standings.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

37. The building generates employment: The building is new and of sound construction. The retention of this commercial building would assist the business. The loss of the building would affect the business activities given the need for a covered workshop. I have reviewed all of the economic arguments advanced in favour of retaining the building. However, the evidence does not show that the design, size and scale of this type of building are required to make the business viable in the short, medium or longer term.

Balancing exercise

38. Substantial weight is attached to my finding that the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Further weight is attached to the effect of the development upon openness of the Green Belt, and additional weight to the potential harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

39. In favour of the scheme, some weight can be given to employment considerations and that modern facilities assist in the running of this rural enterprise. In addition to that, some weight can be attached to the existing boundary treatment which shields the building from direct views and the site is used for commercial activities.

40. On balance, however, I conclude that these considerations, cumulatively or individually, are insufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the other identified harms. There are no very special circumstances in the context of this case. The development conflicts with CS Policies CS02 and CS19, and the relevant advice found in the Framework.

Overall Conclusions

41. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters, I conclude that ground (d) fails. I further conclude ground (a) fails and planning permission will be refused. I shall uphold the notice after a correction.

Formal Decision

42. It is directed that the enforcement notice be corrected by the deletion of the text in paragraph 3, the matters which appear to constitute the breach of planning control, and the substitution therefor of the following text:

‘Without planning permission, the erection of a building used for the maintenance, repair and servicing of heavy goods vehicles and motor vehicles’.

43. Subject to the correction, the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld, and planning permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended. A U Ghafoor

InspectorGravesham Borough Council

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/K2230/C/14/2214542

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Paul Smith MRTPI Apex Planning Consultants

John Bourne Appellant

Michael Bourne } } On behalf of the appellant Robert McNeill }

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Sikdeep Coyle Senior Planning Enforcement Officer

Peter Price MRTPI Principal Planner

DOCUMENTS HANDED IN AT THE HEARING

1. Notification of Hearing 2. Site visit notes – historic 3. Extract copies of CS Policies 4. Letter dated 18 August 2014 5. Planning application ref: 20100777.

PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS HANDED IN AT THE HEARING

1. Drawings submitted with application ref: 20100777 2. Photographs 11 March 2010.

Gravesham Borough Council

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8