LPA Proof of Evidence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Section 174 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) APPEALS BY Ms Heather Woods and Mr Graham Snape Against an Enforcement Notice issued by Winchester City Council on 24th September 2020 in respect of the construction of a single dwellinghouse (former mobile home) at The Green House, Gravel Hill, Shirrell Heath, Hampshire, SO32 2JQ PROOF OF EVIDENCE of Neil March BSC (Hons) DIP TP MRTPI Southern Planning Practice Witness of the LPA Planning Inspectorate Ref’s: APP/L1765/C/20/3261886 & 3261887 LPA Ref: 19/00068/CARAVN SOUTHERN PLANNING PRACTICE LTD Registered Office: Youngs Yard, Churchfields, Twyford, Winchester, SO21 1NN Tel: 01962 715770 Email: [email protected] Website: www.southernplanning.co.uk Registered in England and Wales No. 3862030 CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 QUALIFICATIONS ……………………………………………………… 3 2.0 THE APPEALS ………………………………………………………….. 4 3.0 MAIN ISSUES …………………………………………………………… 7 4.0 THE WORKS CARRIED OUT TO THE MOBILE HOME …………… 11 5.0 PLANNING / ENFORCEMENT HISTORY ……………………………. 13 6.0 RELEVANT DATES / EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE ISSUING OF THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE …………………………………… 15 7.0 CONCEALMENT ………………………………………………………... 18 8.0 LDC APPLICATION (2019) ……………………………………………. 22 9.0 EVIDENCE OF MR R STONE (RULE 6) ……………………………… 24 10.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND B (NO BREACH) ……………………… 27 11.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND D (TIME IMMUNE) …………………….. 29 12.0 GROUND A (DEEMED APPLICATION) ……………………………… 34 13.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND F (LESSER STEPS) …………………… 42 14.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND G (COMPLIANCE PERIOD) …………. 43 15.0 LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………… 44 2 1.0 QUALIFICATIONS 1.1 My name is Neil Andrew March. I am a chartered Town Planner with over 25 years’ experience. I have worked for a number of local authorities in Somerset and Hampshire (South Somerset District Council, New Forest District Council and Winchester City Council) initially in Development Management and then latterly in Enforcement. 1.2 I was the Enforcement Manager at Winchester City Council between November 2006 – November 2014 1.3 Since November 2014, I have been working in private practice for Southern Planning Practice, initially as an Associate Planner and then became a Director in December 2018. 1.4 During my time as Enforcement Manager at Winchester City Council, I oversaw the enforcement function of the Council and dealt with many enforcement related issues. I was the Council’s lead witness in numerous enforcement appeals and inquiries. I have also given evidence in the High Court. 1.5 I have visited the site and inspected the alleged dwelling. I was already familiar with the site and the wider surroundings during my time as Enforcement Manager at Winchester City Council. 1.6 I would have been the Enforcement Manager at Winchester City Council at the time of Rob Ridings investigation / visits in 2010, although I have little recollection of the investigation. I do have some recollections of a previous enforcement case involving the residential use of an outbuilding on Mr Stone’s property that resulted in an enforcement notice being issued and a subsequent appeal hearing that resulted in the appeal being dismissed and the notice quashed in 2008. 3 2.0 THE APPEALS 2.1 These appeals are against an Enforcement Notice issued by Winchester City Council (“the LPA”) on 24th September 2020, in respect of land at The Green House, Gravel Hill, Shirrell Heath, Hampshire, SO32 2J. 2.2 The breach of planning control alleged in the notice is: 2.3 The reasons for issuing the notice are: 4 2.4 The requirements of the notice are: 2.5 The period for compliance is: 2.6 The appeals have been lodged by Ms Heather Woods and Mr Graham Snape, who own the land and occupy the alleged single dwelling (former mobile home). 2.7 The appeals against the EN have been lodged under the following grounds (in the order that they will be dealt with): (b) That the breach of control alleged in the enforcement notice has not occurred as a matter of fact (d) That, at the time the enforcement notice was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action against the matters stated in the notice. (a) That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice. (f) The steps required to comply with the requirements of the notice are excessive, and lesser steps would overcome the objections (g) The time given to comply with the notice is too short. 2.8 Rule 6 status has been granted to Mr R Stone of Sunnybank, Gravel Hill, Shirrell Heath), who lives immediately adjacent to the application site. Part of the appeal site previously formed part of the curtilage of Sunnybank and is where the 5 alleged dwelling / former mobile home is located. Mr Stone had allowed the appellants to site their mobile home in his curtilage and live there. They ended up purchasing the appeal site from him in 2015. 2.9 I have been instructed by Winchester City Council to act on their behalf in these appeals. I am the Council’s only witness. 6 3.0 MAIN ISSUES 3.1 The enforcement notice alleges the construction of a single dwellinghouse comprising a former mobile home. 3.2 There is no dispute between the parties that: • the alleged dwellinghouse was formerly a mobile home; and • that a series of alterations and improvements have been carried out to the mobile home over the years. 3.3 However, the appellant and the LPA have different views on the extent of the works carried out and the effect that this has had on the planning status of the accommodation unit now on site. 3.4 The timing of the works is also a relevant factor. 3.5 The LPA say that the works that were undertaken in late 2017 / 2018, which involved the construction of a new pitched roof, the addition of external cladding on a timber frame around the mobile home, the construction of an extension (to the bedroom) on the end of the mobile home, which involved the laying of concrete base beneath the floor of the extension, and also the laying of a concrete base beneath the floor of the lounge, were the substantive works that resulted in the mobile home becoming a dwellinghouse at that point. As this work took place less than 4 years before the Enforcement Notice being issued the construction of the dwellinghouse cannot be not lawful. 3.6 The appellants are inviting the inspector to consider a number of possible scenarios as to what the mobile home might be. Firstly, they say that it may still fall within the definition of caravan. Secondly, they say that it may be considered to be a mobile unit. Thirdly, in the event that it is not a caravan or a mobile unit, they say that works that were undertaken by Mr Snape in 2013 to replace the double doors on the side of the mobile home with a set of recycled patios doors, which were slightly taller and slightly wider than the double doors, and involved 7 the removal of a section of the chassis means it could no longer be transported and therefore became a dwellinghouse at that point, which was more than 4 years before the Enforcement Notice was issued. Matters to consider 3.7 The first matter to consider therefore is whether the alleged single dwellinghouse is a dwellinghouse – as result of the various alterations and improvement work that has been undertaken to the mobile home. 3.8 If the inspector is content that what is currently on site is a single dwellinghouse then it will be necessary to consider when the substantive works that resulted in the mobile home becoming a single dwelling took place. The LPA say that it was the various works that were carried out to the mobile home in 2017 / 2018, namely, the construction of a new tiled roof, the construction of cladding on an external frame around the sides of the mobile home, the construction of an extension (which included the construction of a concrete base below that the floor of the extension rests on) and also the construction of a concrete base beneath the lounge (that the floor of the lounge rests on) that resulted in the mobile home becoming a dwellinghouse. 3.9 If the inspector does consider the existing unit to be a dwellinghouse as a result of the works undertaken in 2017 / 2018, then the appellants argue that earlier works to the mobile home in 2013, which involved the removal of part of the chassis whilst replacing double doors with recycled patio doors meant that the caravan was not able to be transported and therefore became a dwellinghouse at that point. 3.10 Alternatively, the appellants are also asking the inspector to consider whether the accommodation unit may in fact still be a caravan, or failing that, a mobile unit, i.e. not operational development and therefore just involve a use of the land (under the 10 year rule). However, to do that they would need to provide compelling evidence that the caravan can still be transported off the site. However, no such evidence has been provided. 8 3.11 It also contradicts the appellants case that mobile home could no longer be transported following the removal of part of the chassis in 2013, which was the central argument of their 2019 LDC application. The evidence that they submitted to substantiate this comprise letters that were written in 2019 from two local companies – one a haulage company and the other a body works company – stating that they visited the site in 2015 and inspected the caravan, but based on what they saw they formed the opinion that the caravan could not be transported and the chassis could not be repaired.