Appeal Decisions Inquiry opened on 25 January 2011 Site visit made on 8 June 2011 by Diane Lewis BA(Hons) MCD MA LLM MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 2 August 2011

Appeal 1 Ref: APP/B1740/C/10/2131327 Land at Four Oaks, Ibsley Drove, Ibsley, , BH24 3NP • 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 Christopher Cooper against an enforcement notice issued by Council. • The Council's reference is EN/07/0429 • The notice was issued on 25 May 2010. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, development consisting of: i. The change of use of the Land from agricultural to a mixed use of residential and storage; ii. The siting of a mobile home, in the approximate position marked A on the attached plan; iii. The erection of a building in the approximate position marked B on the attached plan; iv. The erection of a trampoline in the approximate position marked C on the attached plan; v. The use of the building marked D on the attached plan for residential purposes; vi. The use of building marked E on the attached plan for the storage of personal items, building materials, equipment and tools. vii. The formation of a hard standing in the approximate position marked in black hatching on the attached plan; viii. The formation of a storage area in the approximate position marked in blue shading on the attached plan. • The requirements of the notice are: i. The use and occupation of the Land for residential purposes and storage shall only be permitted for a person or persons with bone fide gypsy or traveller status as defined in section 15 of Circular 1/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. At such time as the Land is no longer being used in accordance with this permitted use, the mobile home and all development associated with that use shall be removed and the Land must revert back to its previous authorised use as agricultural land. ii. Only the 2 buildings shown marked as A and D on the attached plan are to be occupied for residential purposes. Other buildings on the Land shall be used only for ancillary purposes, including storage. iii. The Land shall be used and occupied as a single unit at all times by only one family group. It shall not be sub-divided or let in any way. iv. No further development (including the erection of new buildings and the extension and development of existing buildings) shall be undertake without formal planning permission first being granted. v. The parking and turning area currently provided on the Land shall be retained at all times. vi. There shall be no increase in the area used for outside storage of goods or materials beyond the area shown marked in blue shading on the attached plan. vii. There shall be no extension to hard surface beyond that shown marked in black hatching on the attached plan. viii. The current landscaping on the Land shall be retained at all times. • The period for compliance with the requirements is within 1 month of the notice taking effect. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees have not been paid within the specified period, the application for planning permission deemed to have

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended does not fall to be considered. Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice as corrected is upheld.

Appeal 2 Ref: APP/B1740/X/11/2144123 Land at Four Oaks, Ibsley Drove, Ibsley, Ringwood, Hampshire BH24 3NP • 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 certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Christopher Cooper against the decision of New Forest District Council. • The application Ref 10/96257, dated 9 September 2010, was refused by notice dated 31 December 2010. • The application was made under section 191(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. • The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is the use of ex RAF building marked (D) on plan as a dwelling for more than 4 years; the use of ex RAF building marked (E) on plan for storage. Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

The Inquiry

1. The inquiry opened on 25 January 2011 into the appeal against the enforcement notice. The inquiry was adjourned on the same day to enable Mr Cooper to submit an appeal against the decision of the Council to refuse to issue a certificate of lawfulness and development (the LDC) and for the two appeals to be heard together.

2. The inquiry resumed on 7 June 2011 but had to be adjourned after the site visit on the second day because of illness. The inquiry sat for a final day on 14 June. All evidence was taken under affirmation.

3. An application for costs was made by the Council against the appellant and by the appellant against the Council. These applications will be the subject of separate Decisions.

Grounds of appeal

4. Appeal 1 was made initially on ground (d) only, that it was too late to take enforcement action against the matters stated in the notice. In summary, the appellant considered that:

a) Building D was an existing dwelling and that planning permission was not needed to site a caravan within its curtilage.

b) Building B had been on the site since at least 1985 and no new building had been erected.

c) In terms of the hard standing, gravel had always been present on the land, the site being adjacent to a former gravel extraction works.

5. At the start of the inquiry I questioned whether these points were confined to a ground (d) appeal and suggested that underlying the case was also an appeal on ground (c), that a breach of planning control had not occurred. Then, during the course of presenting his own evidence at the inquiry, Mr Cooper implied that the storage was ancillary to the residential use. Towards the end

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

of the inquiry, after the Council addressed the matters I had raised about the notice, the appellant submitted that the notice was invalid and also that it had been incorrectly served. I will take all these matters into account.

6. Both appeals primarily raise ‘legal issues’ and therefore the burden of proof is on the appellant. The relevant test of evidence on such matters is the balance of probability.

The enforcement notice

7. The Council issued an enforcement notice to remedy any injury to amenity caused by the breach of planning control. The intention is to under enforce the breach and thereby grant deemed planning permission under the provisions of section 173(11) 1.

8. The Council put forward two changes to the alleged breach of planning control. The first involved deletion of the reference to a trampoline because prior to the opening of the inquiry the Council considered that the trampoline was not a structure 2. The second involved a reduction in the extent of the hard surfacing. An amended plan, with these two changes, was prepared. The Council also confirmed the siting of the mobile home was for residential purposes and that the formation of the storage area was part of the change of use, not an operational development. The Council raised no objection to improving the order of the wording of the breach, in line with my suggestion.

9. In relation to the requirements, the Council proposed that the reference to ancillary use in step (ii) should be deleted and that steps (iv) to (viii) should be deleted. The Council also accepted that the wording of step (i) could be improved.

10. The appellant considered that he would suffer injustice because there were too many errors to be corrected, the LDC would not be able to be determined and his right to apply to extend building D would be taken away. The appellant refused to take the amended plan submitted by the Council and refused to accept any alteration to the plan. He considered that it would cause him great injustice and that the notice was invalid. He preferred a new notice to be issued.

11. I have the power to correct any defect, error or misdescription or to vary the terms of the notice if no injustice will be caused to the appellant or the local planning authority (s176(1)). Possible changes to the notice were discussed fully at the inquiry with a view to ensuring it correctly described the breach of planning control the local authority considered was involved and that the requirements were not excessive. Importantly, the changes put forward would not result in a very different notice. They would reduce the scope of the operational development and the extent of the requirements. The time limits relevant to the ground (d) appeal would not be affected. The issues raised in the LDC appeal remain before me for determination. The proposed corrections to the enforcement notice would not prevent the appellant from making a planning application in the future. The appellant did not submit appeals under grounds (b), (c) or (f) and only raised the issue of invalidity at a very late stage in the inquiry after I had asked questions about the notice. I am

1 All references in brackets are to sections within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. 2 See paragraph 1.4 in the proof of evidence of Mr Straw, which was submitted in December 2010. http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 3 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

satisfied that to correct the notice, including the plan, as outlined above, would not cause any injustice to the appellant.

12. Finally, there was no evidence to indicate that the notice was incorrectly served or that the appellant did not receive a copy. To the contrary, when requesting a form to make an appeal and then in the submitting the grounds of appeal, Mr Cooper referred to details of the notice. Furthermore when I opened the inquiry, Mr Cooper confirmed that the Council had explained the purpose of the notice and that he understood its effect. I attach no significance to the lack of a signature on a copy of the notice that the appellant subsequently obtained from the Council.

Main Issues

13. These are:

• On the balance of probability has Building D been used as a dwellinghouse for a continuous period of four years.

• Did the material change of use of the land to a mixed use for residential and storage purposes take place more than 10 years before the enforcement notice was issued in May 2010?

• Has the work to Building B amounted to an alteration or has it been so extensive and substantial that as a matter of fact and degree it has resulted in the erection of a new building?

• Is the existing hard standing the same surface as existed in May 2006? If not, has the formation of a new surface amounted to the carrying out of an engineering or other operation?

Reasons

Building D

14. Mr Cooper’s objective was to show that building D has a lawful use as a dwelling house. To do so, continuity of use has to be shown for a period of four years. The use has to be affirmatively established over this period and any gaps in occupancy and actual use have to be minimal. Referring to Circular 10/97, the criteria for determining use as a single dwellinghouse include both the physical condition of the premises and the manner of use 3.

15. By way of background, the building probably dates back to the early 1940’s when an RAF airfield was established at Ibsley. The building was of basic construction, single storey, with a low pitched roof. When Mr Cooper bought the land in May 2006 the shell of the building retained its original basic form and materials - it looked like an old military or agricultural building, rather than a dwelling. Mr Cooper said he found a toilet, a wash basin, cooking and sleeping facilities in the building and an electricity and water supply available. Therefore, with power and water available, it would have been possible to provide facilities required for day to day private domestic existence.

16. In terms of the manner of use, the appellant has gone back to the period during and after the Second World War, when buildings in the Ibsley area were used as RAF accommodation huts and then for housing families in response to

3 Paragraph 2.81 Annex 2 of Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 4 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

the housing shortage. He believes that the buildings at Four Oaks were used as dwellings for civilian occupation by Ringwood and Rural District Council in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. However, the Council examined the historic records of council tenancies for the former RDC and confirmed that there is no record of building D or any building on the appeal site being used by the RDC for housing purposes. Therefore there is no positive evidence on residential use specific to the land at Four Oaks.

17. The appellant relied on evidence covering two further periods – the first being in the 1980’s and 1990’s when the land was owned by Mr E Shutler. Mr Cooper had very little knowledge of the land before 2006 and has produced letters from people who lived or worked in the area to cover this earlier period. Despite the sentence at the top affirming truth, the documents are not in the form of affidavits, which reduces their weight. I understand Mr Cooper asked those people whom he was able to contact what they did when they went to the site and supplied them with a plan. As a result the letters follow a common pattern in content. They also suffer from a lack precision and clarity. There is very little information about the purported residential use and occupation. A simple statement that Mr Shutler lived or resided in the building is not good enough. There is no evidence to show that the building was actually used as a dwelling and a home where Mr Shutler lived, as opposed to him staying overnight occasionally. He may have stayed there a short while and then left the building unoccupied for a period of time. People may have visited the site on business and have been given a cup of tea and used a toilet but that only indicates Mr Shutler was present on the site and there were basic facilities. Such information would also be consistent with the use of the building as a form of site hut, not a dwelling. Moreover, the Council confirmed through Council tax records and the electoral register that Mr Shutler had a house in Ringwood from the mid 1950’s until his death in 1997. This information casts considerable doubt on his use of building D as a dwelling. It also highlights the unreliability of at least one of the letters, from Mr White, who claimed that when he stored his boats on the land from 1997 to 2000 Mr Shutler lived in building D.

18. In conclusion the evidence is insufficient and deficient by a long way to show on the balance on probability that building D was used a dwelling house for a continuous four year period during the time of Mr Shutler’s ownership.

19. The second period covers the four years after Mr Cooper bought the land on 9 May 2006. Mr Cooper says he lived in the middle part of the building, where it was dry, while he got the building and site in a fit state for his family to move there. By this time building D had become dilapidated, doors and windows were missing and at least one wall, inside and out, was part covered in vegetation. The building was not weather tight, although electricity, water and a toilet were available. Seemingly there were some items of furniture and a cooker and Mr Cooper provided clean bedding. Even so, the accommodation would have been of a very low standard, particularly before much renovation work had been done. Whilst in the early days of Mr Cooper’s ownership the building probably was capable of affording space and facilities for sleeping, cooking and washing, it had not been adapted for residential purposes. Utility bills, correspondence, medical registration and other similar documents associated with use as a dwelling house were not presented.

20. Additional information is provided by a set of photographs taken by a Parish Councillor. I am satisfied that the photographs fairly represent what was on

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 5 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

the site at the time, were not manipulated and that the dates given are about right. Mr Cooper accepted that the appearance of building D was as shown in the photograph taken in January 2007. Interestingly the external fabric of the building had changed little over the eight months or so from the purchase of the land, or from the state shown by photographs taken in September 2006. The building continued to be in a semi-derelict condition and remained in part open to the elements during the winter.

21. In that first year, May 2006 to June 2007, Mr Cooper’s family remained at a traveller site in Plymouth. Mr Cooper said he travelled back from Four Oaks to see them at weekends. His final position was that very rarely would he be away from the site more than one night and that he made day visits during the week and at the weekends depending on how the weather affected working outside. Occasionally the family would come to visit at Ibsley, when they would stay at Mrs Cooper’s parents at Poole. I have concern about the inconsistency as to whether Mr Cooper’s visits to his family were most weekends or the odd weekend and how long the visits were. The change that occurred in emphasis reduces the reliability of that evidence.

22. I conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, Mr Cooper’s initial occupation is best described as camping out, not as residential use. On the balance of probability breaks in any occupation at Ibsley were significant. The period from 7 May 2006 to 3 June 2007 does not count towards the four years continuous use as a dwellinghouse.

23. At the beginning of June 2007 the mobile home was moved onto the site. By that time building D was re-roofed and the western elevation repaired. A bathroom was in the northern section of the building and in the southern section was a washing machine and cooking facilities. By June 2009 internal walls were lined and floors were tiled. The mobile home provided primary living and sleeping accommodation, and building D a separate bathroom, kitchen and dayroom. This arrangement is typical of gypsy and traveller sites. Over this period the building was used as an amenity block, not as a dwellinghouse.

24. In conclusion, on the balance of probability building D was not in use as a dwellinghouse for a continuous period of four years, either before or after May 2006. Building D does not have a lawful use as a dwelling house.

25. The judgement in relation to White Row Cottages Bewerley [1991] addresses whether an uninhabitable cottage was a dwelling house for the purposes of the Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Act 1989. However, I have relied on the body of case law that inform decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, including Gravesham BC V SSE & O’Brien 4, R (on the application of Grendon) v FSS and Cotswold DC 5, R (on the application of Gore) v SSCLG and Dartmoor National Park Authority 6 and Swale BC v FSS & Lee 7. The inclusion of defence buildings within the definition of previously developed land 8 does not help the appellant’s case at all because it says nothing about the actual use of land.

4 [1983] JPL 306 5 [2007] JPL 275 at first instance and in the Court of Appeal at [2007] EWCA Civ 746 6 [2009] JPL 931 7 Court of Appeal at [2006] JPL 886 8 ‘Previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.’ Annex B Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing June 2011 http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 6 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

Mixed use of the land

26. The breach of control is that there has been a material change of use of the land to a mixed use of residential and storage, including the use of building E for the storage of personal items, building materials, equipment and tools and open storage on land to the south of that building. The open storage has included timber, ladders, rope, wire, old vehicle parts, building and paving materials, a trailer and a vehicle body.

27. The site visit indicated that some of the items were related to the residential use and some of the equipment and materials would be used in connection with the improvement works to the building and land. There was also a significant amount of storage related to Mr Cooper’s occupation as a fencer. The area south of building E in particular had the appearance of being used for commercial storage. In contrast, the land opposite, where there is the mobile home and lawn, looked to be in residential use. Within building E a significant amount of space was taken up with tools, building materials and equipment. Overall, much of the storage did not have a functional relationship with the residential use. As a matter of fact and degree the storage is a primary use and is correctly identified as a component of the mixed use of the site.

28. The appellant confirmed that he had not looked into the past use of building E. The only evidence on its use for storage was Mr Cooper’s description that there was a military cabinet and all sorts of stuff inside the building when he bought the land. This level of information is wholly inadequate to show that the primary use of the building was for storage over a continuous ten year period. Therefore it is not immune from enforcement action.

29. Mr Cooper researched the local history of the area but the information produced dating back to the 1940’s was not specific to the appeal site. The sumitted letters also contain very little information about the use of the land. The most that may be gained is that Mr Shutler may have had some dealings with a haulage contractor and also dealings in connection with tractor machinery. A document, in the form of a statutory declaration, was also produced confirming the land was sold in 2000 to Mr Wiseman and Mr Swaine who used the track from Ibsley Drove to gain access to the land. Nothing is stated about their use of the land.

30. Within the Council’s evidence was a letter from a local resident 9. Mr Shutler was said to have used the land in conjunction with other land he rented in the area. He kept pigs and dairy cows. A plan shows the pigsty, building D as a workshop and potting shed and building E as a milking parlour and for storage. He then sold the land in 1995/96 to two ladies who used it for vegetables and potted flowers. Around 2000 they then sold it to a builder, who let it become overgrown. The information in the letter is set out clearly and the details of ownership are fairly consistent with other information that came forward. It is the best information available about the use of the land.

31. I conclude on the balance of probability that the land was not used for residential and storage purposes before May 2006.

32. Mr Cooper bought the land in May 2006 and carried out work to enable his family to move onto the land with their mobile home in June 2007. The appearance and character of the land changed, as shown by comparing the

9 The name and address was withheld to protect the privacy of a complainant. http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 7 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

aerial photograph dated May 2005 in the Council’s evidence with the later photographs taken by the Council in June 2007, 2008 and 2009. The change of use therefore can be dated to 2007. The enforcement notice was issued in May 2010. The mixed use has not continued for a ten year period and therefore is not immune from enforcement action. The appeal on ground (d) fails.

Building B

33. Photographs taken in June 2007 and June 2008 by the Council show building B was constructed of block work with two small openings at ground level and a monopitch roof. To the front was a small area covered with concrete slabs and the remains of a low form of enclosure. I agree with Mr Straw that it looked like a pigsty. Its appearance, together with maps of the site, suggests that the building had been on the land for many years. Mr Cooper explained that he took down the low walls at the front. He also took down the main walls one at a time and then rebuilt the walls. The original foundations have been retained. In June 2009 a photograph taken by the Council shows two newly built side walls of block work, to a uniform height and probably slightly higher than the former front wall of the pigsty. Some additional work was done and on the site visit I observed that a window was inserted in the rear wall, a door opening was formed in a side wall and a beam spanned the front of the building. Its appearance is significantly different to what it was before. At the current time it is used for storage and for keeping a dog. In the future, on completion of the work, Mr Cooper intends to use the building for storage or for living accommodation.

34. The meaning of development includes the carrying out of building operations. Building operations includes rebuilding (s55(1)). The definition of a building includes any structure or erection, and any part of a building so defined (s336). I have no doubt that the work carried out amounts to a building operation and that development has taken place. As a matter of fact and degree the old building has not been repaired or altered. The work has been substantial and has resulted in the erection of a new building. Planning permission is required for the development (s57). No permission has been granted. The notice was issued within the time limit for taking enforcement action, which with this form of development is four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially complete (s171B(1)). In relation to building B the appeal on ground (d) fails.

The hard standing

35. Mr Cooper stated that when he bought the land it was covered with a hard surface that had become overgrown with grass and vegetation, as seen on land nearby. He described how he scraped back the grass and weeds and then put clean gravel on top on the existing base. He also took up some concrete slabs. The work was done by hand, using a shovel, mainly by himself but also with the help of some friends. He used his own pick-up truck to bring the clean gravel to the site. The work was carried out in stages a bit at a time and took about a couple of years. The area of hard standing was smaller than it used to be because an area was top soiled and turfed to form a lawn.

36. An aerial photograph dated 16 May 2005 submitted by the Council shows that the top surface on the northern part of the site was covered in vegetation. On photographs taken by a Parish Councillor in autumn 2006 it is possible to see some gravel forming the top surface near to the buildings. In January 2007

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 8 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

work was in progress in clearing the surface up to the western boundary. By June 2007 clean gravel covered the northern part of the site around and between the mobile home and the buildings. The gravel surface ended roughly in line with the southern end of building E, which about corresponds with the black hatching on the corrected plan submitted by the Council.

37. The meaning of development includes the carrying out of engineering or other operations in, on, over or under land (s55(1)). Engineering operations include the formation or laying out of means of access to highways (s336). They generally require some element of pre-planning and would normally be, but do not have to be in fact, supervised by a person with engineering knowledge. Other operations may include works undertaken without the degree of pre- planning and skill constituting engineering operations.

38. The probability is, from the oral evidence at the inquiry and from what I was able to see on the site visit, that new clean gravel was laid over an existing base of compacted ground and hard core/gravel after a certain amount of ground preparation had taken place. The gravel has formed a new surface of a suitable quality for circulation, parking and movement between the mobile home and building D. This new surface has a permanent quality covering a significant part of the site. It makes a visually strong statement and is a sharp contrast to the darker surface adjacent. As a matter of fact and degree the laying of the gravel did not repair a damaged or worn out surface. The scale and nature of the work was not trifling or de minimis, such that it did not to amount to development at all.

39. There probably was some pre-planning, such as deciding where the gravel surface should be laid, organising purchase and collection of gravel and other materials including the kerb edging. There would be some similarities to the formation or laying out a means of access to a highway. Specific engineering skills would not have been essential, although Mr Cooper’s experience in building, hard landscaping work and fencing would have facilitated the resultant standard of finish.

40. I conclude that the work, as a matter of fact and degree, amounted to an engineering operation. The laying of the hard surfacing is development requiring planning permission. No permission was obtained. There has been a breach of planning control. The work was substantially completed within four years of the enforcement notice being served and therefore is not immune from action due to the passage of time. The appeal on ground (d) fails.

Other matters

41. I have concluded that building D does not have a lawful use as a dwelling. Moreover no evidence was presented on the issue of residential curtilage, or to show that the accommodation in the mobile home would be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such. There was no consideration of the implications of the mixed use of the land. Therefore the appellant’s case that planning permission was not needed to site a caravan within the curtilage of building D cannot succeed.

Conclusions

42. For the reasons given above I conclude that Appeal 1 should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice with corrections. I also conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 9 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

of the use of building D as a dwelling and the use of building E for storage was well-founded and that Appeal 2 should fail. I will exercise accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(3) of the 1990 Act as amended.

DECISIONS

Appeal 1 Ref: APP/B1740/C/10/2131327

43. I direct that the enforcement notice be corrected by:

• The substitution of the plan attached to this decision for the plan attached to the notice.

• The deletion of paragraphs 3(i) to 3(viii) and the substitution of:

i. The material change of use of the Land from agriculture to a mixed use comprising residential and storage, including the siting of a mobile home for residential purposes in the approximate position marked A on the attached plan and the residential use of the building marked D on the attached plan, and the use for storage purposes of the building marked E on the attached plan and the area in the approximate position marked in blue shading on the attached plan.

ii. The erection of a building in the approximate position marked B on the attached plan.

iii. The formation of a hard standing in the approximate position marked in black hatching on the attached plan.

• The deletion of paragraph 5(i) to 5(viii) and the substitution of:

i. The use and occupation of the Land for residential purposes and storage shall be by a person or persons having gypsy or traveller status as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. At such time as the land is no longer used and occupied by a person or persons having gypsy or traveller status, the use of the Land for residential and storage purposes shall cease, the mobile home and all development associated with that use shall be removed and the land shall be restored to its former condition.

ii. Only the mobile home marked as A on the attached plan and the building marked as D on the attached plan shall be occupied for residential purposes.

iii. At all times the land shall be used and occupied as a single unit by one family group.

44. Subject to these corrections, the appeal is dismissed and the notice is upheld.

Appeal 2 Ref: APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

45. The appeal is dismissed. Diane Lewis

Inspector

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 10 Appeal Decisions APP/B1740/C/10/2131327, APP/B1740/X/11/2144123

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Christopher Cooper Mr Reg Cooper

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Richard Wald Barrister, instructed by Andrew Kinghorn, solicitor to New Forest District Council He called Mr Nicholas Straw Senior Planner (Appeals and Major Projects), BA(Hons) MA MRTPI New Forest District Council

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mr Patrick Webster Parish Councillor, Ellingham, & Ibsley Parish Council

DOCUMENTS 1 In re 1-4, White Row Cottages, Bewerley [1991] 3 WLR 229 2 Bundle of documents 1-6 3 Extract from Council’s proof of evidence (A) and definitions of Home (B) 4 Bundle of documents 1-9 5 Documents on digital images 6 Land Registry transfer of title 7 Statutory declaration 8 Application form 9 Maps of Ibsley Drove area 10 Index prints and diary records submitted by Mr Webster

Documents 1-9 submitted by Mr Cooper

APPEAL 1 PLANS A Plan attached to enforcement notice B Corrected plan for enforcement notice submitted by the Council

APPEAL 2 PLANS C Location plan D Block plan E Floor plan of building D

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 11

Plan

This is the plan referred to in my decision dated:02.08.2011 by Diane Lewis BA(Hons) MCD MA LLM MRTPI Land at: Four Oaks, Ibsley Drove, Ibsley, Ringwood, Hampshire BH24 3NP Reference: APP/B1740/C/10/2131327

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk