Appeal Decisions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 17 March 2014 by Ian Currie BA MPhil MRICS MRTPI (Retired) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22 April 2014 Appeal A Ref:- APP/T2215/C/13/2208470 Land and Buildings at ‘Longwall’, Crayburne, Betsham, Southfleet, Gravesend, Kent, DA13 9PB • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, against an enforcement notice issued by Dartford Borough Council. • The appeal is made by Omega Holmes Ltd. • The Council's reference is 13/00153/ENF. • The notice was issued on 23 October 2013. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without the benefit of planning permission, the making of a material change of use of the land from a single dwellinghouse (C3) to use as a six bed (with two offices) residential care home (C2). • The requirements of the notice are to cease the use of the land as a residential care home and to return the use of the land to a single dwellinghouse. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 28 days. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (b) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of decision:- The appeal succeeds on ground (a) and planning permission is granted in accordance with the application, deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, subject to conditions. Appeal B Ref:- APP/T2215/X/13/2208468 ‘Longwall’, Crayburne, Betsham, Southfleet, Gravesend, Kent, DA13 9PB • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, against a refusal to grant a lawful development certificate (LDC). • The appeal is made by Omega Homes Ltd. against the decision of Dartford Borough Council. • The application, Ref:- DA/13/00583/LDC, dated 4 May 2013, was refused by notice dated 7 October 2013. • The application was made under section 192(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Appeal refs:- APP/T2215/C/13/2208470, APP/T2215/X/13/2208468 & APP/T2215/A/13/2207294 • The development for which a lawful development certificate (LDC) is sought is use of the property as a residential dwellinghouse by not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents. Summary of Decision:- The appeal is dimissed. Appeal C Ref:- APP/T2215/A/13/2207294 ‘Longwall’, Crayburne, Betsham, Southfleet, Gravesend, Kent, DA13 9PB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Maurice Lam against the decision of Dartford Borough Council. • The application (Ref:- DA/13/00110/COU), dated 23 January 2013, was refused by notice dated 18 April 2013. • The development proposed is change of use of property from single dwelling to residential care home. Summary of decision:- The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted subject to conditions. Preliminary Matter 1. I am satisfied that these decisions are unaffected by the Planning Practice Guidance issued on 6 March 2014. The Appeal Site and its Surroundings 2. The appeal site is situated on the south-east side of Crayburne, an unmade private cul-de-sac sited on the southern edge of the small settlement of Betsham. ‘Longwall’ is a substantial two-storey brick-built detached house with a gable-ended pitched, tiled roof erected in the post Second World War era (circa 1960). 3. On the ground floor is an office with a work station, a fully equipped kitchen, a conservatory/sitting out area and a large sitting room. The rear ground floor bedroom is equipped for a person with mobility difficulties, including a disability shower and WC. The front ground floor bedroom incorporates ensuite bathing and lavatory facilities. 4. To the rear of the attached garage on the north-east flank of the house is an activities room equipped with games and a piano. Between this and the garage is a utility room with washing machines/driers. The garage itself is used for domestic storage including bicycles belonging to residents. It also contains a cleaner’s room, used for storing cleaning materials and utensils. The long rear garden contains a covered swimming pool but this is not available to residents. 5. The first floor level contains a further office with a computer work station. This also incorporates a single sofa bed. The large communal bathroom is shared by the two bedrooms in the south-west and north-west corners. The large south-eastern bedroom at first floor level also benefits from a well- 2 Appeal refs:- APP/T2215/C/13/2208470, APP/T2215/X/13/2208468 & APP/T2215/A/13/2207294 equipped ensuite bathroom. The fourth upstairs bedroom, in comparison, only has a modest shower room. 6. Parking is provided in the north-eastern half of the deep front garden, the south-western half being densely planted. Most of the rest of the houses in Crayburne are of similar size and the same age (or a little older) and similarly well set back from the road. The exception is the rather larger Joyce Hall, opposite ‘Longwall’, a Grade II listed building, described by English Heritage as two-storey with five bays and dating from circa 1820. 7. Crayburne rises up sharply from its junction with Station Road, a secondary road (B262), and turns sharply in a westerly direction immediately to the east of ‘Longwall’. The steeper section to the south of the junction with Station Road is also comparatively narrow. The unmade road broadens out and flattens outside the appeal site and there is a turning area at its western end. A public right-of-way runs along the eastern boundary of the appeal site, separated from it by a brick wall. 8. There is a significant lay-by on the north side of the B262 immediately to the west of its junction with Crayburne. A short stretch of open countryside to the south of the appeal site separates it from HS1, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link between St Pancras International Station and the northern portal of the Channel Tunnel. The Enforcement Notice Appeal on Ground (b) and the Section 195 Appeal 9. Ordinarily, a section 195 appeal against a refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development is determined in conjunction with an appeal made under section 174(2)(c) of the amended 1990 Act. On this occasion, the section 195 appeal is linked to a ground (b) appeal, that the use of these premises as a Class C2 use, as defined in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (UCO), has not, as a matter of fact, taken place. 10. Therefore, the onus is on the appellants in both these appeals to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that use as of these premises for residential care outside a single household has not occurred. If it has then the Use would fall within Use Class C2, the appeal on ground (b) would fail and a LDC for a dwellinghouse, occupied by not more than six residents living together as a single household, where care is provided for residents, would not be granted. 11. In contrast, if the appellants can demonstrate that the use falls within Use Class C3(b), no material change of use from the previous use, Use Class C3(a), will have taken place and a LDC confirming that can be granted. Therefore, as a first step in assessing whether this is the case, the relevant provisions of the UCO need to be set out in full. 12. Use class C2 is defined within “Residential institutions” in the Schedule to the UCO as follows:- 3 Appeal refs:- APP/T2215/C/13/2208470, APP/T2215/X/13/2208468 & APP/T2215/A/13/2207294 “Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within class C3 (dwelling houses). Use as a hospital or nursing home. Use as a residential school, college or training centre.” 13. Classes C3(a) and (b) are set out as follows:- “Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) — (a) by a single person or by people living together as a family, or (b) by not more than 6 residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents)...” 14. Article 2 of the UCO states that in this Order, unless the context otherwise requires, “care” means personal care for people in need of such care by reason of old age, disablement, past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs or past or present mental disorder, and in class C2 also includes the personal care of children and medical care and treatment. 15. The appellants cite the observations of Mr Justice Richards (as he then was) in R (oao Crawley BC) v First Secretary of State & The Evesleigh Group [2004] EWHC 160 (Admin), who said, “I would reject any suggestion that in a case where care is needed for those under a disability, Class C3 can apply only if the carers are in residence in the same property as those for whom they are caring. That would seem to me to run counter to the language of Class C3 itself and to the underlying policy” (of providing care in the community for persons with learning difficulties in small households in pre- existing residential accommodation without the need for planning permission).