BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

APPEAL BY Mr Richard Petrucci against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council to issue an enforcement notice on 13 August 2012 relating to the unauthorised material change of use of the land from nil use to a residential use through the use of a detached building for residential purposes and the use of a further building for purposes ancillary to the residential use at Woodlands, Rhododendron Avenue, Meopham, Gravesend, , DA13 0TT

Please note that this document and any other documents referred to herein, together with the local Planning Authority’s questionnaire, are available for inspection at the offices of the Planning and Regeneration Department of Gravesham Borough Council during normal office hours (0900 to 1700 on Mondays to Fridays except Public Holidays). Planning and Regeneration Department can be found at Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent, DA12 1AU.

Planning Inspectorate Reference. No: APP/K2230/C/12/2183315

Gravesham Borough CouncilEnforcement Ref. No: 11/00336/EN

Gravesham Borough Council Appeal Reference No: 2012/00034/ENF

PROOF OF EVIDENCE BY SIKDEEP COYLE

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 I haveGravesham been employed by Gravesham Borough Borough Council asCouncil an Enforcement Officer within Planning Department since 13 December 2004, and was appointed as the Senior Enforcement Officer on 1 January 2009. My duties involve investigating breaches of planning control under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). I have become familiar with the Culverstone Valley Area through dealing with a variety of planning issues, enforcement issues, enforcement action and associated appeals over the past 8 years.

1 of 24 2. ADMINISTRATION

2.1 In this proof of evidence I will set out the procedural history of relevance to Ground D, a chronology of the material dates, and a full analysis of all of the evidence obtained by the Local Planning Authority in relation to the ground ‘d’ appeal. I will also address matters that arise from the ground ‘f’ and ‘g’ appeals. Richard Hart will address the ground ‘a’ appeal as part of his proof.

3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3.1 It is prudent to mention from the outset that the appellant submitted to the Local Planning Authority a Lawful Development Certificate on 12 October 2011 with a determination date of 7 December 2011. The application was allocated to Planning Officer Kelly Joyce who has extensive experience dealing with Lawful Development Certificates and is very familiar with the Culverstone Valley Area. Following procedural inquires and communication with the then appointed agent, the application was revalidated which provided a new 8 week date of 7 February 2012.

3.2 A draft decision was prepared on 27 February 2012 by Kelly Joyce recommending that the application be refused and this decision was due to be signed off under delegated powers by the Service Manager, Development Management. However, on the same day the Council received notification of an appeal (APP/K2230/X/12/2171300) against non-determination from the Planning Inspectorate and could not therefore issue a decision notice.As Kelly Joyce works on a part time basis the case was taken over by me as not only have I visited the appeal site but I have extensive knowledge on the Culverstone Valley Area and have previously prepared evidence for public inquiries.

3.3 As part of the Lawful Development Certificate Application (LDC Application) the appellant provided two witness statements produced by Frederick Sewell which can be found at Appendix 7 and the appellant himself, which can be found at Appendix 11. The Local Planning Authority carried out its own research and investigations in responseGravesham to the LDC Application. Borough Council 3.4 The relevant four year period for consideration in the ground ‘d’ appeal is from 13 August 2008 to 13 August 2012, the latter being the date that the Enforcement Notice was served. The burden of proof is firmly on the appellant to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that building A has been used continuously as a single dwellinghouse for at least four years prior to the date on which the notice was issued and that building B has been used continuously for purposes ancillary to building A

2 of 24 for at least four years prior to the date on which the notice was served(Section 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). However, as the evidence presentedas part of the LDC Application also refers to the use of appeal site between 2001 until present, my proof of evidence will also cover the period from 2001 to present.

4. GROUND ‘D’

Summary of Council’s Case on Ground D

4.1 The breach of planning control alleged in the notice is as follows:

Without planning permission the unauthorised material change of use of the land from nil use to a residential use through the use of a detached building sited in the position marked A on the attached plan for residential purposes and the use of a building sited in the position marked B on the attached plan for purposes ancillary to residential use.

4.2 The requirements of the notice are as follows:

a. Cease using the land and the buildings marked A and B on the attached plan for residential purposes;

b. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all fixtures, fittings and plumbing from the kitchen;

c. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all white goods (including but not limited to the cooker and washing machine);

d. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all fixtures, fittings and plumbing from the bathroom/shower room;

e. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all residential furniture, including but not limited to the bed and sofa;

f. Remove from the building marked B on the attached plan all residential furniture and paraphernalia;

g. Remove all debris and materials resulting from compliance with steps a to f above.

4.3 TheGravesham time of compliance with the enforcement Borough notice is four Councilmonths.

4.4 The Local Planning Authority will demonstrate that Building A has not been used continuously for residential purposes for the four year period prior to the date the Enforcement Notice was served.

3 of 24 4.5 Secondly the Local Planning Authority will demonstrate that Building B has not been used continuously for purposes ancillary to the residential use of building A for the four year period prior to the date the Enforcement Notice was served.

4.6 The appellant in his statement of case provides no detail of the case he proposes to put forward at the inquiry other than suggesting that he may call upon evidence from three individuals namely, Mr F Sewell, Ms B Palmer and himself. Furthermore the statement of case suggests that the appellant has no evidence which would demonstrate that on the balance of probability that the appeal site is immune from enforcement action.

Evidence

4.7 In this section of my proof of evidence I will set out the evidence submitted by the appellant and that gathered by the Local Planning Authority with regard to the use of the appeal site. The evidence when viewed either individually or collectively suggests that there is no credible or reliable evidence to demonstrate that on the balance of probability the residential use has been continuous in the relevant four year period.

4.8 In order to present the evidence in a logical manner my evidence is being dealt with on a thematic basis which is as follows:-

 Council Tax

 Electoral Register

 Site Visits

 Planning Contravention Notice

 Lawful Development Certificate Application

 Evidence from Kent Police

 Neighbours Comments

 Electric Consumption

 Water Consumption

4.9 I have studied the key dates subject to this appeal which I present, in the table below in chronological order with a summary for the assistance of the Inspector. Date/PeriodGraveshamEvent Borough AnalyCouncilsis 02 August 2001 Original chalet burnt down Appendix 4 and plot created with surplus land. 30 November 2000 - 05 Frederick Sewell and This is for information. September 2002 Barbara Palmer liability at Muddy Paws 05 October 2002 – 15 Frederick Sewell registered This is for information.

4 of 24 July 2005 as living at 53 Truman Drive, September 2006 Frederick Sewell claims that Appendix 7. No date has he built the residential cabin been given as to when the and occupied the cabin to cabin was built. There is live in. no evidence that this was indeed the case.

06 July 2007 Officer’s conduct site visit The officer suggests from the photographs taken that building A was under construction at the time of this visit, therefore this casts doubt on the accuracy of Frederick Sewell’s statement in which he claims he began living there in Sept 2006. 10 October 2005 – 17 Frederick Sewell is recorded This directly contradicts January 2007 as living at 49 Beechwood the statement contained in Drive Appendix 7 and places grave doubt on the accuracy of the evidence given. Additionally Frederick Sewell on his statement provides his present address as 12 Stanstead Road, . However District Council (Appendix 43) have no record of his residence at that address which further undermines the accuracy of his statement. 08 July 2010 The appellant purchases the Appendix 6. appeal site

23 September 2010 Officer’s conduct site visit Richard Petrucci states that he did not know what the buildings were previously being used for. He made no suggestion that he knew the previous occupants. The building was virtually empty. No evidence of residential use Gravesham Borough AppendixCouncil 12. Appellant now claims that at the time of this visit a Mr Edwards was living there.

October 2010 to date Appellants advises that he In his statement began living at appeal site, (Appendix 11) Richard see Appendix 11. Petrucci makes no

5 of 24 mention of a tenant ever living at the appeal site, yet in the enforcement notice appeal form dated 7 September 2012 suggests he let the property to Mr Edwards shortly after July 2010 until March 2011. 21 March 2011 Kent Police destroy Appendix 17. Police raid. cannabis factory in Building Building A being used to A grow large quantities of cannabis. No evidence of residential use. 10 May 2011 E-on confirm electricity There is no evidence of connected any electrical connection prior to this date, but evidence demonstrates that electric was being abstracted illegally. Appendix 25 and Appendix 17. Autumn 2011 Residential Use The Council accepts that the property was being used for residential purposes from Autumn 2011. 12 October 2011 Lawful Development Subsequent appeal was Certificate submitted – withdrawn on 25 July 20110892 2012. 02 December 2011 Officer’s conduct site visit The building is sparsely furnished, but to a greater extent than the last inspection. Appendix 13.

02 August 2012 Officer’s conduct site visit The building appears to be residentially occupied. Appendix 14.

Council Tax

4.10 The following is a summary of the information regarding Council Tax liability for each relevant property; WoodlandsGravesham (the appeal site), Thriftwood Borough and The Wyllots Council None of the above properties have been or are currently listed for Council Tax purposes.

Muddy Paws Time Period Liable Person(s) 30.11.2000-05.09.2002 Barbara Palmer/Frederick Sewell 06.09.2002-21.11.2005 Craig Palmer/Claire Pennington

6 of 24 22.11.2005-29.04.2011 Gemma Brown/Simon Thomas 30.04.2011-15.06.2012 Toby George/Joanna George 16.07.2012-present Russell White/Claire Hill

Tall Trees Time Period Liable Person(s) 18.12.2000-present Alan Davis-Watling/Celeste Davis-Watling

In addition to the above properties Gravesham Revenues Department have informed me that Frederick Sewell has been associated with another property in the Culverstone Valley Area. The following sets out the relevant details;

49 Beechwood Drive

Time Period Liable Person(s)

10.10.2005-17.01.2007 Frederick Sewell

4.11 I attach as Appendix 7 a copy of the sworn statement provided by Frederick Sewell as part of the evidence submitted by the appellant in connection to the LDC Application. It is noted from this statement that Mr Sewell claims to have brought the property known as Woodlands in 2001 and that be built and began living in a cabin from September 2006 until he sold the property to the appellant in July 2010.

4.12 On 9 May 2006 Frederick Sewell visited the Borough Council offices and informed the Revenues Department that he had purchased 49 Beechwood Drivefrom his daughter on 10 October 2005 and requested the Council Tax be put into his name and that he was the sole occupier. A copy of the note signed by Frederick Sewell is attached as Appendix8.

4.13 The Revenues file shows that when Frederick Sewell vacated the property on 17 January 2007 (when his liability ended) his forwarding address was given as c/o Mrs P Skeggs 12 Stanstead Road, Caterham. I attach a copy of the email received from Gravesham Revenues Department Appendix 9.

4.14 It should be noted that the address on the sworn statement signed by Frederick Sewell remains the address in Caterham. 4.15 TheGravesham information obtained from Gravesham Borough Revenues Department Council shows that at no point in time has Council Tax been paid for any residential occupancy on the appeal site. It should also be noted that the information illustrates that Frederick Sewell was associated to another property for Council Tax at the same time he claims to be living at the appeal site. It is considered that the evidence from Gravesham Revenues Department is factual, contemporaneous and provided by independent person(s).

7 of 24 4.16 In my opinion the above evidence casts doubt on there being any permanent residential occupation of the appeal site as I would assume that if Frederick Sewell was occupying the site from September 2006 - July 2010 he would have registered the appeal site with the Revenues Department and paid Council Tax.

4.17 Secondly the Council Tax evidence links Frederick Sewell with 49 Beechwood Drive at the same time according to his sworn statement he is living at the appeal site.When he left 49 Beechwood Drive he left his forwarding address as 12 Stanstead Road, Caterham. If he was living at the appeal site I would expect his forwarding address to have been there.

4.18 In summary I believe the evidence from Council Tax shows Frederick Sewell was associated with other residential properties during the time in which he states to have been living at the appeal site.

4.19 Additionally there is no evidence associating Mr Edwards, the appellant or any other person with the appeal site.

4.20 I would conclude from this that very limited weight can be afforded to Frederick Sewell’s and the appellant’s evidence.

Electoral Register

4.21 The electoral register has been checked for all the relevant sites associated with this appeal and the information is attached as Appendix10. The information from the register shows the following information:-

Woodlands

 Barbara A Palmer between 2007-2011 (Motorhome)

 Richard Petrucci 2012 (Motorhome)

49 Beechwood Drive

 Frederick Sewell appears as an addition to the register on 08.12.2006 and is no longer registered.

4.22 Notwithstanding this the appellant has made no reference to there ever being a motorhome on the site nor does the previous occupier Frederick Sewell mention a motorhomeGravesham in his sworn statement Borough (Appendix 7) indeedCouncil Frederick Sewell’s statement makes no reference to his co-habitation of the appeal site with Mrs B Palmer.

4.23 I attach as Appendix 11 a statement signed by the appellant Mr Richard Petrucci dated 25 January 2012, which was submitted as part of his LDC Application.

8 of 24 4.24 In this statement the appellant states that he was not living at the appeal site regularly during July 2010 to October 2010 and that he began occupying building A from October 2010. In this statement he makes no reference to letting the appeal site to any other individual.

4.25 Richard Petrucci appears on the electoral register in 2012 under the category of a motorhome. However, according to the statement submitted by Richard Petrucci he has been occupying building A since October 2010 and there is no reference to a Motorhome.

4.26 There is no record of a Mr Edwards on the register.

4.27 Mr Sewell does not appear on the register in association with Woodlands, rather he is listed as the occupier of 49 Beechwood Drive between 10 October 2005-17 January 2007, which casts doubt on the accuracy of his statement.

4.28 This evidence is consistent with the Local Planning Authorities evidence in that the appellant did not register at the appeal site for electoral purposes until 2012 soon after he began residing at the appeal site from late 2011.

Site Visits

4.29 I have visited the site on three occasions, namely 23 September 2010, 2 December 2011 and more recently 2 August 2012.

23 September 2010

4.30 During the determination of planning application 20100613 a site visit was undertaken by the case officer Hayden Marsh, he was accompanied by Senior Planner Richard Hart and myself.

4.31 Appendix12 includes the file note of the visit and photographs which demonstrate that the appeal site contained no evidence of permanent residential occupation.

Building A

4.32 Living Room

The living room had no furniture within it apart from a small coffee table in the middle of the room and a white plastic chair to the right of the front door. Above the fire placeGravesham was a small tv and radio. Borough Council 4.33 Bedroom

The bedroom contained a three door wardrobe which contained no clothes or personal belongings and a number of empty hangers. In the centre of the room was a single mattress on the floor with some sheeting on top.

9 of 24 4.34 Kitchen

The kitchen contained a sink, fridge, washing machine and storage cupboards. However as the photographs show there was no evidence anyone was using the kitchen. The Fridge was completely empty and the cupboards contained no food.

4.35 Bathroom

The bathroom contained a shower, sink and toilet.

Building B

4.36 Building B contained a work bench, a number of shelves with tools and other goods scattered all over the floor. There was no evidence that building B contained any residential paraphernalia and it appeared to be nothing more than a workshop/storage shed.

4.37 Following the inspection of the appeal sitethe appellant stated “he did not know what the buildings to the rear were used for previously”and then went on to explain “they are not ideal conditions and he has not touched the building and that he uses the rear section of the site to park a few cars on the land and that he stays overnight occasionally to act as a security guard for the site”.

4.38 Additionally, Mr Petrucci stated “he would not be using the site in winter time to stay”. At no time during the meeting did the appellant state that the appeal site was being occupied for residential purposes or that he had rented the appeal site out to a Mr Edwards. It is clear from the photographic evidence and file note that there was no residential use of building A and no ancillary use of building B for residential purposes.

4.39 I refer to Appendix 11the appellants signed statement dated 25 January 2012, in which he states that he began occupying the appeal site from October 2010. No reference is made in this statement to a Mr Edwards. The appellant now states that shortly after his purchase of the appeal site he rented the property out to a Mr Edwards who lived there until March 2011. This casts doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the appellant’s evidence.

4.40 During the site inspection the appellant stated “he did not know what the buildings to the rear were used for previously” which indicated to me that he had not previously visitedGravesham the appeal site indeed his comments Borough were such that Council it indicated to me that he did not know the previous occupiers.Undeniably his statement resulted in no further questioning by me. Yet in his grounds for appeal the appellant now claims that he regularly visited the appeal site from the summer of 2007 until he purchased the appeal site in July 2010.This casts doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the appellant’s evidence.

10 of 24 4.41 The information obtained during the meeting of 23 September 2010 contradicts the evidence the appellant provided during his LDC Application and now for the appeal subject to this inquiry and relates to the relevant four year period.

2 December 2011

4.42 I visited the appeal site with Kelly Joyce during the determination of the LDC Application, also in attendance was the appellant and his former agent Mr Ghosh. I attach as Appendix 13the file note of the site inspection and photographs.

4.43 The photographs of building A show the building to be sparsely furnished but each of the rooms appeared to show evidence of residential use.

4.44 The photographs show that Building B was used for storage/workshop and contained various car parts.

4.45 In summary the above information illustrates that on 2 December 2011 Building A appeared to be used for some form of residential purpose and Building B was used for storage/workshop uses. This corroborates the evidence obtained by the Local Planning Authority and demonstrates that the appeal site only began being used for residential purposes from late 2011.

02 August 2012

4.46 I attach as Appendix 14photographs taken of the appeal site. The photographs demonstrate that building A contained additional furniture and appeared more lived in, when you compare the photographs from all visits. This corroborates the evidence obtained by the Local Planning Authority and demonstrates that the appeal site only began being used for residential purposes from late 2011. This therefore casts doubt on the accuracy of the appellant’s evidence.

4.47 It is my opinion that the photographic evidence of the appeal site from the various visits undertaken by officers, place grave doubt of the accuracy of the appellants evidenGraveshamce. My colleague, Richard BoroughHart at Section 5 of hisCouncil proof has carried out a detailed analysis of the photos which supports the Local Planning Authorities position that the appeal site was not residentially occupied within the relevant four year period.

11 of 24 Planning Contravention Notice

4.48 In the appellant’s grounds for appeal, he states “The appellant bought the property in July 2010 and, shortly afterwards, rented the property out to a Mr Edwards who lived there until March 2011 on an assured short hold tenancy”.

4.49 The Local Planning Authority on the 11 March 2011 served on the appellant a Planning Contravention Notice under Section 171C(2) and 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). I attach the completed Notice which was returned to the Local Planning Authority on 1 April 2011 as Appendix 15.

4.50 It is clear from this completed document that the appellant makes no mention of Mr Edwards having occupied the appeal site. This therefore casts doubt on the accuracy of the appellant’s evidence. No evidence has been produced by the Council of any agreement to rent out the property to a Mr Edwards.

Evidence submitted in support of theLawful Development Certificate 4.51 The Appellant submitted an application for a Lawful Development Certificate on 12 October 2011, which was later appealed against for non-determination. However five weeks before the Inquiry was scheduled to open the appellant withdrew his appeal on the 25 July 2012, which resulted in an award of costs in favour of the Local Planning Authority.

4.52 The evidence gathered by Local Planning Authority through the determination of application 20110892 is pertinent to this appeal.

4.53 Following investigations into addresses associated with the appellant and the former owner of the site Frederick Sewell the following sections sets other addresses associated with both parties.

4.54 I should mention from the beginning that at no time through the submission and determination of the Lawful Development Certificate Application/Appeal was any evidence given or reference made of the appellant renting the appeal site to a Mr Edwards.Gravesham If this was the case, BoroughI would have expected Council the appellant to have mentioned this in his statement at Appendix 11.

4.55 Frederick Sewell’s sworn statement at Appendix 7 refers back to 2001 when he stated he purchased the appeal site it was therefore decided to check his alternative addresses back until 2000.

12 of 24 4.56 Frederick Sewell was released from prison on 25 June 2002 which is confirmed by Kent Police and is evidenced in Appendix 21. He was released to Muddy Paws, Rhododendron Avenue, Culverstone, Meopham, Kent DA13 0TU. This information ties in with Gravesham Council Tax which shows that from 30 November 2000 – 5 September 2002 Barbara Palmer and Frederick Sewell were liable. However, there was 25% discount on the Council Tax which would suggest it was a Prisoner Disregard which was confirmed by Council Tax in an email received 27 November 2012 and is attached at Appendix 40.

4.57 On the planning appeal form for 20020472 I noted that Frederick Sewell provided his address as 53 Truman Drive, St Leonards-on-Sea, (Appendix 22). Therefore I decided to approach Hastings Borough Council to see if they have any record of Frederick Sewell at that address.

4.58 Hastings Borough Council in an email received 19 December 2011 confirmed that Frederick Sewell occupied (Appendix 23) 53 Truman Drive, St. Leonards on Sea from 5 October 2002 to 15 July 2005.

4.59 Gravesham Revenues Department (Appendix 9) show that Frederick Sewell was the sole occupier of 49 Beechwood Drive, Culverstone Kent from 10 October 2005 until 17 January 2007. Upon vacating 49 Beechwood Drive, Frederick Sewell left his forwarding address as 12 Stanstead Road, Caterham.

4.60 The appellant in his grounds of enforcement appeal at paragraph 11 states “Mr Sewell and Ms Palmer moved to France although Mr Swell lives from time to time with his daughter in Caterham, ”. I would suggest that following Frederick Sewell vacating 49 Beechwood Drive in January 2007, he did not live at the appeal site, but instead he lived in between his daughter’s residence and property in France which in my opinion is consistent with the Local Planning Authorities case that the appeal site was not residentially occupied until late 2011.

4.61 The above information is provided by Revenues Departments at various Council’s and is from independent sources and it contradicts the information that has been providedGravesham in the sworn statement previously Borough made by Frederick Council Sewell.

4.62 When I first met Richard Petrucci on site (23 September 2010) he made no indication that he was living on the appeal site or that the property was being rented out to a Mr Edwards, indeed the property was vacant of any real possessions and the fridge was completely empty.

13 of 24 4.63 All of the above information in my opinion shows that the appeal site has not continuously been used for residential purposes in the relevant four year period.

Kent Police

4.64 I was contacted by Kent Police by Detective Constable Maw on 19 April 2011, I attach as Appendix 16a file note of my conversation. In essence DC Maw advised me that the appeal site had been subjected to a cannabis raid on 21 March 2011.

4.65 On 21 March 2011 the appeal site was raided by Kent Police. This is a period during which the appellant now claims to have rented building A to a Mr Edwards, but in his previous statement at Appendix 11 claims he was living in. On entry, the Police discovered that the Building A was being used for growing cannabis plants and Building B was being used for purposes ancillary to the growing of cannabis. This was subsequently destroyed by the police (crime reference number AY/3505/11). Appendix 17 contains a photographic album (GB/12/11) and a letter with floor plan dated 9 June 2011 from Gemma Bullock (Crime Scene Investigator).

4.66 In order to assess the police evidence of the use of the buildings at this time, the evidence relating to each room will be evaluated individually.

Building A Living Room 4.67 The living room referred to as main room on the police plan in Appendix 17 shows the living room had been altered to include an internal porch and a secondary internal main door had been constructed from ply wood and did not appear to be for aesthetic reasons according to the police and was most likely to increase security. The photographs labelled 16 (View towards shed), 17 (view through entrance) and 18 (view through internal door) show the arrangement around the door.

4.68 In the living room there were two large growing tents (2mx2mx2m in size) filled with plants and associated equipment (Fans lights etc) which took up most of the room making it impossible for any residential occupation of the room. Photographs 21 (ViewGravesham of plants in room 1) and 22 (viewBorough of lighting and ventilation Council in room 1) show the plants to be fairly mature which would indicate they have been growing for a considerable period of time which would suggest to me that for a period leading up to the police raid on 21 March 2011 the living room was not being used for residential purposes.

14 of 24 4.69 The position of the tents in the living room also made manoeuvring around the living room difficult and Gemma Bullock (CSI Investigator) commented “The tents took up most of the space within the cabin, leaving very little room to manoeuvre”. The tents also dissected the kitchen doorway making it difficult to enter/exit the kitchen. Photograph 20 (view of green room tent) shows the tent covers over half the doorway to the kitchen.

Bedroom 4.70 The floor plan shows that over half of the bedroom (indicated as room 2 on the police plan) was covered by a growing tent. The photographs labelled as 34 (view of green room – room 2) and 35 (view of plants in room 2) show that on 11 March 2011 the bedroom was being used as growing room and could not be used for residential purposes.

Kitchen 4.71 Access to the kitchen was severely restrained due to the growing tent in the living room blocking over half the doorway to the kitchen. Photograph 20 (view of green room tent) shows the tent covers over half the doorway for the kitchen. Within the kitchen Gemma Bullock commented ‘As you can see from the photographs the kitchen showed no signs of persons inhabiting the address’. Photographs 23 and 24 (Views of the kitchen show there was extensive equipment and piping making the use of the kitchen for residential purposes impossible.

Bathroom 4.72 The bathroom was completely blocked by one of the growing tents in the living room and according to the police it was not until the tactical team started to dismantle the set-up in the living room that the bathroom was discovered. Gemma Bullock made the following comments regarding the bathroom “I remained at the location while the setup was dismantled and noted that the tactical team uncovered the bathroom, the doorway which was entirely covered by the tent. It had not been previously possible to see or gain entry into the bathroom, which was dirty and clearly had not been used for considerable time”.

BuildingGravesham B Borough Council 4.73 Photographs 8 to 15 show that building B was being used a storage shed and did not have any residential paraphernalia within it and instead contained paraphernalia associated with the cultivation of cannabis in building A.

4.74 In summary Gemma Bullock made the following comments regarding the use of Building A for residential purposes “Given that the kitchen was not readily accessible,

15 of 24 that the bathroom was not at all accessible, and that there was no furniture, personal belongings, food or drink present I do not think that this is somewhere that anyone had been inhabiting since prior to the set-up of the cultivation”.

4.75 The above information illustrates that Building A was uninhabitable at the time of the Police Raid (21 March 2011) and sometime prior to set-up and Building B was not being used ancillary to a residential use in Building A. Furthermore, there were no day to day facilities that could be associated with a residential use and much of Building A was inaccessible due to the existence of the cannabis plants and the associated paraphernalia.

4.76 The letter from the Crime Scene Investigator suggests that the property would have been uninhabitable since prior to the set-up of the cultivation (i.e. for an unspecified period prior to March 2011).

4.77 The information from Kent Police is from an independent source, it contradicts the information that has been provided by the appellant and is within the relevant four year period.

4.78 As previously mentioned the appellant in his signed statement at Appendix 11 states that he purchased Woodlands in July 2010 and that since October 2010 he has occupied the property.

4.79 However, there is doubt on this statement as Kelly Joyce spoke to DC Maw from Kent Police on 14 December 2011 and Appendix 18 contains a file note of their conversation. This conversation is collaborated by the crime report obtained from Kent Police which is shown as Appendix 19.

4.80 Following his dealings with the appellant DC Maw was of the opinion that the appellant’s home address was Flat 17, Mead House, 127 Main Road, Biggin Hill, Westerham.In the phone conversation DC Maw said that he visited the Flat 17, Mead House, 127 Main Road, Biggin Hill, Westerham, the appellant did not answer the door (although he suspected he was at home). DC Maw left a card and according to the Graveshamcrime report the appellant called Borough him back the same day. Council

4.81 The crime report at page 4 records the conversation between DC Maw and the appellant had which says “He was very surprised that his property had been used for the cultivation of cannabis. Indeed, he stated that he had not been there for several months prior to April. PETRUCCI stated he had rented the land and property out to male, possibly a “John” but he could not remember his name.”. Interestingly the

16 of 24 appellant in his grounds of enforcement appeal does not provide an initial for Mr Edwards’s forename, indeed Mr Edwards is not mentioned at all in the Statement of Case submitted by the appellant.

4.82 The above information would suggest that Kent Police were of the opinion that the appellant’s home address was Flat 17, Mead House, 127 Main Road, Biggin Hill, Westerham and not the appeal site. Furthermore, the appellant told DC Maw that he had been renting the property out to a male, and had not visited the appeal site for several months. This clearly indicates that the appellant was living at another address and not at the appeal site which is contrary to his statement which states he had been living at the property since October 2010. Additionally the Crime Report at page 5 states “PETRUCCI’S explanation is implausible, but extremely difficult to disprove”.

4.83 I consider that the evidence from Kent Police is entirely inconsistent with the claimed residential use of Building A and ancillary use of Building B. It is apparent to me on considering this evidence that there was no one using the premises for residential occupation at this time, and this is view expressed by Kent Police.

4.84 Further I consider that during the period leading up to the police raid of 21 March 2011 there is clear evidence that the building had not been in residential use for some time. For example the growing tent in the living room removed access to the bathroom and the crime report from Kent Police shows that in their opinion the bathroom had not been used for some time. Moreover, I am assuming with the ventilation system and the extensive electrical work it would have taken sometime to set-up.

4.85 The appellant in his grounds of enforcement appeal at paragraph 10 says “following the departure of Mr Edwards sometime after March 2011, the appellant moved into the property and has lived there since”. The appellant does not actually provide a date of when he moved to building A nor does he provide any evidence from Mr Edwards.

4.86 It is Graveshamclear from this evidence that theBorough appeal site has not beenCouncil used continuously for residential purposes in the relevant four year period.

Neighbours Comments 4.87 I have reviewed the most recent planning application in relation to the appeal site, which was submitted 2 July 2010 under our reference 20100613 and was for the erection of a detached four bedroom dwelling with rooms in the roof space and a

17 of 24 detached double garage at the front. The applicant was the appellant.

4.88 During the determination of this application the Local Planning Authority received four letters of objection from neighbouring properties. I attach these letters as Appendix 28.

4.89 In summary,a letter dated 21 July 2010 at point 2 says “The original planning application was for two properties, Muddy Paws & Tall Trees which have been built. So a third property between the other two, on the same plot is over development”. Point 5 says “The previous owner of the plot in question was declined planning permission..”.

4.90 This letter provides clear evidence that the appeal site was not being used for residential purposes at the time of the application or anytime before. The writer has a clear understanding of the planning constraints for the Culverstone Valley Area, had the appeal site demonstrated signs of permanent residential occupation I have no doubt that this writer would have alerted the Local Planning Authority to the potential breach of planning control.

4.91 In summary letter dated 23 July 2010 says at the third paragraph “The planning permission was granted for 2 houses on the original whole site, and not 3 houses, which contravenes what we understand for this area……The land incorporating ‘Tall Trees’ ‘Muddy Paws’ and the proposed development of ‘Woodlands’ was originally identified as 2 plots…...”. I now refer to the second and the paragraph sub-headed Point 15 – Existing Use which says “The larger building against the rear boundary is approximately 2 years old. The building was constructed as a storage shed and has been developed for occasional residential use…”.

4.92 This letter provides clear evidence that the appeal site had only recently been adapted for occasional residential use, which implies there was no permanent residential use of the appeal site in the relevant four year period or any time before. Again, the writer has a clear understanding of the planning constraints for the Culverstone Valley Area, had the appeal site demonstrated signs of permanent residentialGravesham occupation I have no doubt Borough that this writer would Council have alerted the Local Planning Authority to the potential breach of planning control.

4.93 In summary letter dated 27 July 2010 says at the third paragraph “The plots Tall Trees, Muddy Paws and Woodlands were only ever 2 authorised plots and not 3. If you were to allow 3 properties this would be in breach of the Culverstone Valley policy.”.

18 of 24 4.94 This letter provides clear evidence that the appeal site was not being used for residential purposes at the time of the application or any time before. Again, the writer has a sound understanding of the planning constraints for the Culverstone Valley Area, had the appeal site demonstrated signs of permanent residential occupation I have no doubt that this writer would have alerted the Local Planning Authority to the potential breach of planning control.

4.95 In summary letter dated 29 July 2010 says at point 2 “The proposal does not meet the policy relating to residential development to residential development due to there not being an existing qualifying residential on the site”.

4.96 This letter provides clear evidence that the appeal site was not being used for residential purposes at the time of the application or any time before. Again, the writer has a sound understanding of the planning constraints for the Culverstone Valley Area, had the appeal site demonstrated signs of permanent residential occupation I have no doubt that this writer would have alerted the Local Planning Authority to the potential breach of planning control.

Electricity Consumption

4.97 The agent’s letter dated 7 December 2011 at point 5 (Appendix 24) makes the only reference to the electric supply during the time Frederick Sewell owned the appeal site and the letter states “I have been informed that Mr Sewell shared the electricity from a neighbouring house and legal reason he is not willing to disclose”.

4.98 The wording of this statement would suggest that the agent is simply stating what he has been informed by either the appellant or Frederick Sewell.

4.99 The arrangement of Frederick Sewell sharing his neighbour’s electric supply would indicate an ancillary residential use rather than an independent dwelling.

4.100 I refer to Appendix 17 and the accompanying letter provided by Kent Police. It states that Graveshamon the day of the raid (21 MarchBorough 2011) an electricity Council company attended the appeal site to make safe (cut off) the electrical supply and confirmed that the electricity was being abstracted. This proves that following the raid the electric was cut off from the appeal site.

19 of 24 4.101 A fax was received from E.on (Appendix 25) on 10 January 2012 confirming that E.on began supplying the appeal site with electric on the 10 May 2011, the account holders name being the appellant.

4.102 This information shows that since 10 May 2011 the appellant has had an electric supply to the appeal site, which is consistent with the Local Planning Authorities appeal case that the appeal site appellant only began residing at the appeal site from late 2011.

4.103 The evidence from Kent Police shows that on 21 March 2011 (Appendix 17) at the time of the raid the electric to the site was being abstracted (i.e. was taken illegally) which suggests that prior to E.on supplying the site there was no direct supply to the site.

4.104 Going by the evidence from Kent Police and Frederick Sewell, I would suggest that there has been no direct supply of electricity to the appeal site until the 10 May 2011.

4.105 I believe that the evidence regarding the electric connections to the site undermines the alleged residential use of the appeal site. There is no evidence of a direct electrical connection to the appeal site prior to May 2011 and it is likely that when the electric was cut on the police raid on 21 March 2011 until 10 May 2011 when the E.on account went live there was no electric available on the site.

Water Consumption

4.106 As part of the Lawful Development Application the appellant provided an incomplete e-mail chain between the agent and Southern Water (Appendix 26) as part of his burden of proof. This confirms Frederick Sewell was responsible for water charges to the site from August 2001 to 8 July 2010.

4.107 The e-mail provides evidence that there has been a water connection to the appeal site since 2001 when Frederick Sewell created the plot up until he sold the appeal site to the appellant in 2010. Gravesham Borough Council 4.108 However, this evidence does not provide any proof of a permanent residential occupation at the appeal site. It simply shows that a site had a water connection and there are a variety of reasons why a site could have water supply. For example in connection with maintaining the land or to supply water to a shed or workshop.

20 of 24 4.109 As a result of this information Kelly Joyce undertook enquiries with Southern Water. Martin Quarrington of Southern Water contacted Kelly Joyce on 15 February 2012 and he stated that an inspector visited the property [appeal site] on 5 May 2001 and recorded that it was unoccupied Appendix 27 contains a file note and fax from southern water.

4.110 Martin Quarrington informed that the records show on 11 July 2001 Southern Water were advised that the property was now known as woodlands but he has no record of who informed them of this change.

4.111 The above date of when the site changed names collaborates with the other evidence which shows that the site was created in 2001.

4.112 Martin Quarrington advised that the average domestic use is 52 or 53 cubic metres per person per year therefore rates below that would indicate a non-domestic use. However Martin Quarrington did suggest that a 40 cubic metres per year at the appeal site could be indicative of one person occupying in the property with low water usage.

4.113 Southern Water provided the consumption rates by fax on 16 February 2012 and updated figures on 4 December 2012 (Appendix 27) for the appeal site from 2006 to date and these are shown in the table below

Dates Time Total consumption Monthly consumption period in cubic metres in cubic metres for the dates (extrapolated annual rate) *

28.03.2006 – 22.09.2006 6 months 7 1.16 (13.99) 22.09.2006 – 19.07.2007 10 months 27.1 (estimated) 2.71 (32.52) 19.07.2007 – 03.10.2007 3 months 4.9 1.63 (19.59) 03.10.2007 – 05.04.2008 6 months 15.7 2.61 (31.39) 05.04.2008 – 06.10.2008 6 months 40.3 6.71 (80.59) 06.10.2008 – 06.04.2009 6 months 1 0.16 (1.99) 06.04.2009 – 30.09.2009 5 months 25 5 (60) 30.09.2009 – 19.03.2010 6 months 15 2.5 (30) 19.03.2010 – 08.07.2010 4 months 12.3 (estimated) 3.07 (36.9) 08.07.2010 – 05.10.2010 3 months 10 3.33 (39.99) 05.10.2010Gravesham – 03.02.2011 4 months Borough0 0Council 03.02.2011 – 31.03.2011 1 month 2 2 (24) 31.03.2011 – 29.09.2011 6 months 24 4 (48) 29.09.2011 – 21.03.2012 6 months 11.8 1.96 (23.59) 21.03.2012 – 04.10.2012 7 months 76.2 10.88 (130.62)

21 of 24 4.114 Using the consumption rates provided by Southern Water, I have translated these to both monthly and annual (shaded column) consumption rates, to consider whether the consumption rates is indicative of a residential use. The table shows that since 2006 when Frederick Sewell claims to have been occupying the site residentially the water consumption rates have varied. The only periods which are indicative of residential use (i.e. above 52/53 cubic metre per year) are only three periods namely:

05.04.2008 – 06.10.2008 06.04.2009 – 30.09.2009, and 21.03.2012 – 04.10.2012

The other time periods from 2006 to 2012 show consumption rates below a residential usage apart from the period 31 March 2011 – 29 September 2011 which shows a low water rate of over 40 cubic metres which Martin Quarrington states could indicate one person occupying the site with a low water usage.

4.115 Having evaluated this evidenceI would conclude that there has been no continuous residential occupation of the appeal site.

Conclusion 4.116 It is clear from the evidence presented that building A was not being used for residential purposes for a substantial period before the police raid on 21 March 2011 but was instead being used for the cultivation of cannabis. Consequently building B was not being used for ancillary residential purposes.

4.117 It is clear from the photographic evidence contained in Appendix 17 that the renovation works to enable use of building A for the cultivation of cannabis were very extensive and involvedI would assume some considerable time to set up. Therefore I conclude that there was a significant period in which building A was incapable of being used as a dwellinghouse, as a consequence the appellant cannot demonstrate that the use has been continuous for the relevant four year period.

4.118 It is clearly apparent from the evidence so far presented that at the time of my inspectionGravesham on 23 September 2010 thereBorough was no residential useCouncil of building A.

4.119 The appellant has not produced any evidence either through the submission of the LDC Application or this appeal (which now contradicts the evidence previously submitted) that demonstrates that on the balance of probabilities building A has been used continuously as a single dwellinghouse for the relevant period.

22 of 24 4.120 On the contrary the Local Planning Authority have demonstrated that the alleged residential use of building A during the relevant period isdubious, and that limited weight can be attached to the evidence presented by Frederick Sewell, Ms B Palmer, Mr Edwards and the appellant.

4.121 Upon analysis of the evidence presented by the Local Planning Authority I would suggest, demonstrates that the residential use of the appeal site did not commence until sometime after May 2011 when the appellant officially connected the electricity supply.

5. GROUND F

5.1 The appellant contends in their Statement of Case that the requirements at Section 4 of the Enforcement Notice are excessive to remedy the breach of planning control. The appellants goes on to say ‘Even if the permanent residential use of the building ceases and the buildings have a nil use, a material change of use would not occur if the appellant wished to make occasional temporary use of the buildings. And that the Notice should be varied to remove requirements (b) which states “Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all fixtures, fittings and plumbing from the kitchen” and requirement (d) which states “Remove from the building marked A on the attached all fixtures, fittings and plumbing from the bathroom/shower room”.

5.2 Both the kitchen and bathroomis an integral part of the unauthorised use of building A for residential purposes and has facilitated that unauthorised use.Their removal is justified and necessary to remedy the breach of planning control.

5.3 The appellant quite rightly states that should the Enforcement Notice be upheld the appeal site will have a ‘nil use’. The appeal site will therefore have no authorised use. Whether a material change of use occurs is a matter of fact and degree to be determined by the Local Planning Authority. This does not therefore support the appellant’s suggestion that the occasional temporary use of the building should enable the appellant to retain the kitchen and bathroom.

5.4 I concludeGravesham that the requirements ofBorough the Notice are not unduly Council onerous or excessive and that lesser steps would not remedy the breach of planning control, or satisfy the purpose in Section 173(4)(b) of the Act.

6. GROUND G

6.1 The appellant contends in their submitted Statement of Case that ‘he will be faced

23 of 24 with a lengthy and possibly litigious process to enable him to find another home’. The appellant therefore suggests that the compliance period of four months associated with Section 6 of the Enforcement Notice is too short, a period of twelve months is sought in order to give the appellant sufficient time to find other suitable accommodation.

6.2 The appellant is not confined to a tenancy agreement which would require him to give legal notice toa landlord of his intention to vacate. The appellant is not therefore restricted in his search for accommodation or vacation of the appeal site on receipt of the Inspectors decision should the Enforcement Notice be upheld, indeed the appellant has known of the Enforcement Notice since August 2012 so could research his position before formal notification of the Inspectors decision.

6.3 The appellant appears to place emphasis on a lengthy litigious process perhaps pertaining to the purchase of a new home. However I do not consider it unreasonable in these circumstances to expect the appellant to move to temporary rented accommodation while he continues to seek a permanent dwelling, there being no evidence of financial hardship.

6.4 Given the current state of the housing market, I do not contemplate the appellant having great difficulty in securing other rented accommodation to suit his needs.I attach example for the market available to rent as Appendix 43.

6.5 In summary it is the Local Planning Authorities position that four months is sufficient time to secure compliance with the Enforcement Notice.

Human Rights 6.6 I acknowledge that this appeal engages the appellant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 however,it is considered necessary to pursue compliance with the Enforcement Noticein order to protect the amenity of the area, and to secure compliance with both local and national policies. This interference is proportionate to the achievement of a legitimate aim, namely protection of the environment. Gravesham Borough Council Signed:

Sikdeep Coyle 24 of 24