LPA Proof of Evidence

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)

The Green House, Gravel Hill, Shirrell Heath, Hampshire, SO32 2JQ

PROOF OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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. However, there is no further evidence to substantiate these claims (and some of the information in the letters is also factually incorrect). There is also no indication that either of these companies are proposing to provide any further evidence at the inquiry. As it stands therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the works undertaken in 2013 to the chassis had effectively rendered the mobile home importable. On this issue the appellants have failed to discharge the burden to prove their case on the balance of probabilities which the appellants are required to do under their legal grounds of appeal.

Concealment

3.12 There is also an act of concealment that occurred in 2010 that runs through these appeals and has a potential bearing on the outcome of the case (especially under the ground d appeal on the issue of lawfulness).

3.13 There can be no doubt that the LPA were deliberately misled when they investigated the mobile home when it first arrived on the site following a complaint. Mr Eric Cox, an experienced planning agent who at that time was acting for Richard Stone confirmed to the Council that the mobile home was only being as ancillary accommodation. This was confirmed in a PCN. The investigating officer, Rob Riding, also visited the mobile home and inspected it inside, looking inside cupboards and the fridge. He was therefore satisfied that it was being used as ancillary accommodation. However, the evidence now presented by the appellants in this inquiry confirms that they first sited the mobile home on the land in February 2010 and were occupying it from then onwards, including during Mr Ridings visit in August 2010. 9

3.14 It is evident therefore that Mr Ridings visit in August 2010 was staged and that Mr Cox deliberately misled the Council as to the true use of the mobile home at that time. Whereas the appellants themselves were not directly in contact with the Council at that time it is highly inconceivable that they did not know anything about the situation or the fact that they needed planning permission to live their. Mr Snape confirmed in his witness statement for the 2019 LDC that Mr Cox was a personal friend.

3.15 The LPA therefore argue that the concealment that took place in 2010, that the appellants are now seeking to benefit from (with regards to their appeal under ground d), is a significant issue in these appeals that cannot be overlooked or easily dismissed as being irrelevant or not applicable.

3.16 The concealment issue also features heavily in Mr Stone’s (Rule 6) case.

4.0 THE WORKS CARRIED OUT TO THE MOBILE HOME

4.1 The works undertaken to the mobile and the dates that they took place can be categorised as follows (in chorological order):

• In 2013, Mr Snape states that he replaced the double doors on the side of the mobile home with a set of patio doors that he obtained from a recycling centre. The new doors were slightly taller and slightly wider than the existing doors. Therefore, he had to cut out part of the chassis from underneath the mobile home. This resulted in a section of the lounge floor of the mobile home (the bit just inside the door) needing to be lowered, so when you walked through the door you stepped up into the lounge.

• In 2015, the appellants set about improving the mobile home to make it more comfortable and more thermal efficient. According to Mr Snapes stat dec for their 2019 LDC application, since 2015 they embarked on a series of works involving fitting stud walls the interior, insulating between the joists, plaster board and plaster finish. A new kitchen was also installed. New DG windows were also installed and a Air Source Heat Pump.

• In late 2017 / 2018, a new roof was constructed, cladding was added to the sides (on a timber frame) and an extension built (to the bedroom). It is understood that a concrete base was constructed that the underside of the floor of the bedroom extension rests on.

• In April 2018, a concrete floor was constructed beneath the lounge, thereby enabling the remainder of the lounge floor to be lowered to match the doors installed in 2013. This involved the removal of another section of chassis.

4.2 It is understood that Mr Snape undertook most of the work himself as a competent DIY person. 11

4.3 The addition of the cladding and the bedroom extension have been built by Mr Snape on an elaborate ring beam system, so the unit does not have any foundations as such. However, the bedroom extension and lounge floors both rest on the concrete bases that were specifically constructed for this purpose in 2017 and 2018.

4.4 The construction of the new roof and the cladding and the extension and the concrete base beneath the lounge floor are all evidenced in photos that can be time dated.

4.5 The replacement of the patio doors in 2013 and the other works that took place in 2015 are specified by Mr Snape in his witness statement that was submitted as part of the 2019 LDC. There is a photo showing a cut away section of chassis which is dated 07.06.2013 (GS2). Apart from that, there is no other evidence that corroborates the work that Mr Snape says took place in 2013 and 2015.

5.0 PLANNING / ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

5.1 There have been a number of enforcement investigations involving the site: -

Enf Case Ref: Alleged Breach Status / Date: 05/00351/OPER Construction and use of outbuilding as Enf Notice issued 4 separate dwelling at Sunnybank, Gravel Feb 2008; Hill, Shirrell Heath Appeal allowed / EN quashed 5 Dec 2008

10/00112/MIXED Alleged unauthorised extension to Closed 10 Jun 2010 outbuilding, residential mobile home and summerhouse at Sunnybank, Gravel Hill, Shirrell Heath

16/00294/CARAVN Alleged caravans being placed in field Closed 9 Dec 2016 adjoining gypsy site, Land lying to the west of Gravel Hill (later revised to - Following up a complaint, a recent site inspection found a caravan which appeared to be in residential use. The caravan was situated inside the greenhouse

17/00186/CARAVN Alleged that two caravans (one mobile Superseded by home_one touring) located on land for 19/00068/CARAVN residential purposes – no planning permission at Land behind Sunnybank, Gravel Hill, Shirrell Heath

19/00068/CARAVN New case opened to replace Subject of these 17/00186/CARAVN after further site appeals inspection in April 2019 determined that the mobile home was now a dwelling

5.2 The planning history is as follows:

Application ref: Description Decision / date 19/01683/LDC Residential occupation Refused

13 Sept 2019

5.3 Prior to the submission of the LDC application, in April 2018 Mr Cox had submitted a planning application for the ‘Retention of mobile home for residential occupation solely by the applicant and dependants’ (application ref: 18/00994/FUL), although there was a problem with the red line and the ownership of the access track resulting in the wrong ownership certificate being signed. The application therefore ended up being returned on 7th March 2019, and no longer appears on the planning register.

5.4 A copy of the Enforcement Notice issued on 4 February 2008 and the subsequent appeal decision dated 5 December 2008 (in relation to enf case 05/00351 at Sunnybank) are attached at Appendix 1. The plan attached to the enforcement notice denotes the extent of the residential curtilage of Sunnybank as it existed at that time (red line).

6.0 RELEVANT DATES / EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE ISSUING OF THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

May / August Council’s investigation of the mobile home (ref: 2010 10/00112/MIXED) - First visit by Rob Riding (May 2010) - Correspondence between Rob Riding and Eric Cox (June 2010). Mr Cox confirmed mobile home was being used as ancillary accommodation and not as independent accommodation. Position confirmed by Rob Riding in letter dated 10 June 2010. - Second visit by Rob Riding (3 August 2010). Mobile home was inspected. Confirmed that it was being used for ancillary purposes. Site notes and photos provided. Case therefore closed. 5th Nov 2015 Land purchased by appellants 24 Sept 2016 **4 years before the Enforcement Notice issued** Nov / Dec Enf Case 16/00294/CARAVN - Touring caravan spotted 2016 inside greenhouse with gas bottle and water, suggesting residential use. PCN issued to address on land registry (14 Northcroft Road, Gosport, PO12 3DR) and left on site. Email received from Mr Snape the same day. Caravan was removed so case was closed. PCN not required to be completed. 2017 / 2018 Enf Case 17/00186/CARAVN - Further allegation received about residential mobile home and touring caravan on the site. - Letter sent to owners (January 2018) - Reply received from Eric Cox (March 2018). Proposes to submit a planning application to deal solely with the residential mobile home - Confirmation from Mr Cox that a planning application has been submitted for retention of mobile home (April 2018).

Agreement between Mr Cox and Enforcement Officer that the 10 year rule applies April 2018 Planning application submitted for ‘Retention of mobile home for residential occupation solely by the applicant and dependants’ (application ref: 18/00994/FUL) 11 May 2018 Planning case officer, Liz Marsden, visits and takes photos 7 March 2019 Planning application 18/00994/FUL returned due to issues with the red line / ownership certificate. Case passed back to enforcement 15 March 2019 PCN issued alleging Unauthorised residential use of mobile home 5 April 2019 Further PCN issued alleging unauthorised dwelling 24 April 2019 Further site inspection by Gill Cooper and Sarah Castle (WCC Enforcement). Mobile home judged to be a dwelling due to level of alterations and additions made to it. Agreement with Mr Cox that an LDC could be submitted in order to confirm that dwelling is now lawful. July 2019 LDC submitted by Mr Cox (ref: 19/01683/LDC) Sept 2019 LDC refused – WCC not persuaded that the works undertaken to the mobile home in 2013 were sufficient to constitute a dwelling. More recent works in 2017 / 2018, which involved the construction of an extension to the bedroom, etc did result in the unit becoming a dwelling, but is less than 4 years ago. Oct 2019 Instructions to legal recommending enforcement action be taken 24 Sept 2020 Enforcement Notice served (note: issuing of the notice was delayed due to the Coronavirus pandemic / lockdowns, etc)

6.1 Copies of documents for the 2010 enf investigation (ref: 10/00112/MIXED) are attached at Appendix 2.

6.2 A copy of the Land Registry document (dated 21 November 2016) is attached at Appendix 3. 16

6.3 Copies of documents for the 2016 enf investigation (ref: 16/00294/CARAVN) are attached at Appendix 4.

6.4 Copies of documents for enf investigation ref: 17/00186/CARAVN in 2017 / 2018 are attached at Appendix 5.

6.5 Copies of the photos taken by Liz Marsden on 11 May 2018 are attached at Appendix 6.

6.6 Attached at Appendix 7 is a document entitled ‘Timeline of enforcement investigations, available photographic evidence, applications and other relevant information’ which sets out the available evidence in chronological order from the enforcement investigation in 2010 up the issuing of the Enf Notice on 24 September 2020.

7.0 CONCEALMENT

7.1 The appellants grounds of appeal and Statement of Case confirms that they first moved the mobile home onto site and occupied it in Feb / March 2010. Evidence has been provided to confirm this. However, this entirely contradicts the findings of the enforcement investigation undertaken by Mr Riding in 2010, which included an internal inspection of the caravan on 3rd August 2010. It also contradicts the evidence that was presented in the 2019 LDC application, which states that the appellants did not move into the caravan until 1st January 2011, which was the date specified by Mr G Snape in his Witness Statement.

7.2 The enforcement file documents from 2010 clearly show that Eric Cox, an experienced planning agent, confirmed that the use of the mobile home at that time was for ancillary accommodation to Sunnybank. To be sure of the position, the Council issued a PCN on the landowner, Richard Stone, which was completed and returned by Eric Cox.

7.3 In light of the evidence now being put forward by the appellants, there can be no doubt that the actions of Mr Cox was clearly intended to misled the LPA as to what the caravan was being used for in August 2010. As such, a deliberate act of concealment has taken place and a missed opportunity for the LPA to have taken enforcement action against the unauthorised residential use of the mobile home by the appellants at that time.

7.4 Mr Stone (Rule 6) concurs with the LPA’s position that an act of concealment took place in 2010 and considers it a crucial issue in this appeal. It is understood that Mr Stone may have additional information / evidence on this matter.

7.5 Even the 3rd party, Mr and Mrs Heasell, who corresponded with the Council on the enforcement investigation in 2010 notes that ‘Someone was being clearly being misled.’

7.6 The appellants deny that an act of concealment has taken place and point to the fact that they did not correspond with the Council until 2016. However, Mr Snape confirms in his witness statement for the 2019 LDC that Mr Cox is ‘a 18

personal friend’. It is understood that Mr Cox was instrumental in arranging for the appellants to move to their mobile home to the site in 2010 when they had to leave another site in Fareham (Solent Breezes). Mr Cox is an experienced planning consultant and would have been well aware that this was a breach of planning control and was therefore instrumental in deliberately misleading the Council in its enforcement investigation in 2010. It is highly inconceivable that the appellants did not know that their occupation of the mobile home required planning permission or that they did not know anything about the Council’s investigation or visit in August 2010.

7.7 In 2016, when Gareth Ball (WCC Enforcement Officer) was investigating the touring caravan in the greenhouse, the correspondence between Mr Ball and Mr Snape made it clear that it was the residential occupation of the caravan / the fact that it might be lived in, that was the concern. This must have led the appellants to query their occupation of the mobile home. Even if Mr Snape was not aware that their residential occupation of the mobile home was a breach of planning control in 2010 (although that seems very unlikely) then they would have been aware of this in 2016. The PCN issued by Mr Ball in 2016 was headed, ‘Following up a complaint, a recent site inspection found a caravan on the site which appeared to be in residential use’. Even though Mr Ball subsequently advised that the PCN did not need to be returned as the touring caravan was being moved, the reason for the document being issued, i.e. a caravan which appeared to be in residential use, would have surely alerted the appellants to the fact that their residential occupation of their own mobile home was a breach of planning control.’

7.8 The concealment issue is relevant to the background to the case. It is also relevant in the event that either:

• the Inspector were to consider that the removal of part of the chassis in 2013 rendered the mobile home immobile and therefore no longer a caravan at that point (and so would have become a building as a result and therefore potentially lawful under the 4 year rule); or

• the inspector considers the current accommodation unit to still be a caravan or a mobile unit (and therefore potentially lawful under the 10 year rule).

7.9 In either of these scenarios, the LPA would argue that the Connor principle (as established in Welwyn Hatfield BC v SSCLG [2011] UKSC 15) is engaged as a result of the actions of Mr Cox in 2010, when he deliberately misled the Council in its enforcement investigation as to what the mobile home was being used for. Not only did he provide confirmation in an email that it was being used as ancillary accommodation and state categorically that is was not being used as independent accommodation, it would appear that he also deliberately staged the site visit in August 2010 so that all of the appellants personal possessions were removed from the mobile home and some toys brought in in order to give the appearance that it was just being used ancillary. As well as also filling in a PCN on behalf of Mr Stone confirming that it was just being used for ancillary accommodation and not as independent residential use. This entirely contradicts what the appellants are now saying as part of their evidence in this appeal.

7.10 The act of deception / concealment by Mr Cox denied the Council the opportunity to take enforcement action. It also enabled the appellants to continue living in the mobile home unchallenged for a further 7 years and to be able to undertake various works to the mobile home that would have otherwise not taken place.

7.11 The Connor principle established that a person should not later be able to benefit from their actions if they deliberately mislead a Council in an investigation. Whilst it may be the case that the appellants themselves did not directly mislead the Council in 2010, there is a very strong case that their personal friend, Mr Eric Cox, who was an experienced planning consultant and was instrumental in bringing them to this site deliberately misled the Council so that the appellants could benefit and are therefore indirectly involved. It seems inconceivable that when they moved to the site that the appellants did not know anything about the need for planning permission to live there or the implications

if the LPA were to come calling. In all the circumstances, it appears highly likely that there was at least some shared knowledge of the deception between the appellants and Mr Cox, if not active collusion.”

7.12 The concealment issue therefore undermines any lawfulness arguments that could otherwise be advanced by the appellants in support of any residential use of the mobile home, or land, that may have occurred under the 4 and 10 year rules.

7.13 It therefore has bearing on the ground d appeals, as well as being a relevant consideration in other grounds of appeal, e.g. ground G.

8.0 LDC APPLICATION (2019)

8.1 The LDC application submitted by Mr Cox on behalf of the appellant on 30 July 2019 was refused by the Council on 13 Sept 2019.

8.2 The application was refused under Section 191(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as ‘the local planning authority, was not provided with information which satisfactorily demonstrated the lawfulness of the use or operations described in the application.’ The reasons for refusing the application, as detailed in the officer report, were:

- The photographs provided in support of the application were considered to offer little support to the application as they are undated and out of context. - In the case of Measor v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1998] 4 P.L.R. 93; [1999] J.P.L. 182, it was held that the approach to the definition of a "building" should be considered, as a matter of fact and degree, in the light of factors such as size, permanence, physical attachment and composition by components. Generally, a mobile caravan would not satisfy that definition, taking into account factors such as permanence and attachment. - The works to the entrance of the mobile home alone probably did not alter the nature of the structure from being one of a mobile home to that of a building as understood in law. The fact that the mobile home could not be moved in the opinion of specialist removers does not relate to the degree of permanence of the structure, but instead reinforces the probability that the “DIY” works that the applicant undertook when installing the larger patio doors in fact jeopardised the structural integrity of the mobile home. The Council is not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the works that the applicant carried out were of the degree required to transform the mobile home into a building. - None of the works described by the applicant in the Planning Statement that took place in 2015 constitute material operations and are works to the internal features of the mobile home.

- It would appear that in May 2018 some material works were carried out. The lounge floor was “dropped” to match the lowered entrance way which was done in 2013 and addressed in this report above. An extension was also allegedly added on to the mobile home in early 2018. These works are of a greater material degree and would ordinarily tilt the balance of probability in favour of the mobile home having become a building. These material operations, however, are relatively recent and have not attained immunity from enforcement action.

9.0 EVIDENCE OF MR R STONE (RULE 6)

9.1 Mr Stone lives immediately adjacent to the site and previously owned the land upon which the mobile home is sited and is therefore well placed to comment and provide evidence on the appeal. He fully endorses the Council’s case and is intending to provide further evidence in support of this.

9.2 Mr Stone submitted representations on the LDC application challenging the evidence that had been submitted. His comments included the following points:

Concealment

- There has been an act of concealment as Mr Cox acting as the agent for Ms Woods told Mr Riding the caravan was ancillary to the adjacent dwelling Sunnybank and shared the facilities within. That simply was not true. Ms Woods paid rent and paid for electricity monthly, which was used, and recorded by a meter in the house. Each reading is written on the meter cupboard door and may be inspected. Receipts were issued for each monthly payment. Mr Cox deceived the officer as there was a clear breach of planning taking place, which was the unlawful siting of a caravan occupied independently to Sunnybank. Had Mr Cox not concealed the truth, enforcement action would have been taken to cease the use and remove the caravan from the land, and the applicant would not have been in the position she is claiming today. A couple of years on, a PCN was issued relating to a further caravan sited within the greenhouse, which was subsequently removed. The Council is best positioned to decide if any further concealment took place regarding land ownership and the non- return of the notice. Mr Snape who jointly instructed Mr Cox with Ms Woods claims he carried out works in 2013 that made the caravan immobile, yet he was party to Mr Cox submitting a retrospective application for the retention of a mobile home in April 2018. This was subsequently withdrawn as it was found to be invalid, but still misleading the Council that a caravan existed. 24

Disputed evidence

- I totally refute the majority of the evidence submitted and do not believe four years immunity has been achieved. The evidence provided also fails to confirm the necessary degree of permanence that operational development has been achieved. - Mr Snape in his declaration states he fitted patio doors to replace an aluminium door, which necessitated the removal of part of the chassis. This work was not carried out in 2013 as stated. At that time there was a good relationship between all of us and I would say I visited the caravan at least once a week, and at no time was there a step in the doorway or the floor lowered. This work was started on the 26th May 2018, and continued for the following two weekends. I am certain of this as I was attending a barbeque at my daughter's property celebrating my 68th birthday. The noise was so great I went into my house and looked down into the caravan window from my bathroom velux window. I saw Mr Snape on his knees grinding metal as sparks were flying and hitting metal with a hammer in the area of the doorway. In 2013, I still owned the land the caravan was sited on, and there was no intention of selling the land. Ms Woods knew the arrangement was only temporary while they sorted themselves out, after their eviction from Solent Breezes. Mr Snape is a practical man and no way would he have altered the structure of the caravan to prevent it being mobile during that temporary arrangement. - He was involved in a discussion with Mr Cox and Mr Snape in 2016 about the possibility of moving the mobile home back into the garden of Sunnybank. There was no mention that the mobile home was immobile. - He disputes the reliability of the evidence provided by Clarks. Martyn Clark is not a structural engineer and only gave this opinion to safeguard himself if there were problems moving it. He and Mr Snape make no reference that the structure was permanently fixed to the ground, this evidence is not submitted as a declaration and I challenge its accuracy in relation to the date of the inspection. - The South Coast Body letter is ambiguous. Are they saying they inspected the caravan in 2015? or are they saying that the supposed adaptions were 25

explained and if carried out, would then render it not mobile. I contest the opinion that new metal could not be welded in to make it sound enough to be moved. Crucially again no reference is made to the van being attached to the ground. Both of these authors evidence needs to be tested under oath to have any merit, as my evidence contradicts their recollections. - A photograph of pieces of metal and timber are produced, but there is no evidence this formed part of the caravan structure. If a photograph was to be taken one would expect it to image the section which alterations had taken place, to have any merit. - I recall going into the caravan on the morning of the 30th August 2016 as Ms Woods had problems with her electric supply coming from my house. The trip switch kept tripping so I went into the caravan and isolated each power point and light switch to find the fault. This meant I went into every room to carry out the test and can confirm there was only one floor level running through the unit. There were no steps in the door area. I am certain of the date this happened as I was admitted to hospital that afternoon with a heart attack, and stayed in for several weeks. - On another occasion, Mr Cox invited me to accompany him on a visit to meet Ms Woods and Mr Snape to see if I could assist him in resolving their planning problems. I believe this was an evening in the week 5th to 9th March 2018. I said very little at the meeting and Mr Cox was preparing to submit a retrospective application to retain the mobile home. Again, at this time, the floor was one level and I sat facing the door and could see no step lowering the floor level to the threshold of the door. During this visit Mr Cox asked Mr Snape" if the caravan could be moved". Mr Snape replied "yes but if you want by the weekend I will make sure it can't" Work was going on at that time pitching a new roof, cladding the sides, and putting on a bedroom extension. All of this work started in November 2017, and continued until June 2018. During this period, I say is when the caravan was not capable of being moved. In light of the above I believe the application should be refused taking account of "Gabbitas” as quoted by Mr Cox as part of the application, followed by urgent enforcement action.

10.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND B (NO BREACH)

10.1 The appeals under ground (b) relate to the alleged material change of use of the Land from horticultural use to ancillary residential use and storage. The appellants argue that they have used the land for residential purposes, in association with their occupation of the mobile home, since Feb / March 2010, which is more than 10 years since the EN was issued. Therefore, they say the use of the land for such purposes is lawful, so no breach has occurred in that respect.

10.2 At the time of Rob Riding’s visits in May and August 2010, the mobile home was situated within the curtilage of Sunnybank (determined by the red line on the Enforcement Notice issued on 4 February 2008, in respect of enf case ref: 05/00351/OPER – see Appendix 1). There was no indication that the wider part of the appeal site was being used for residential use – indeed, a timber summerhouse that was under construction was deemed by Mr Riding to be outside of the residential curtilage and so was required to be moved back inside the curtilage. The photos taken by Mr Riding in May and August 2010 also show the inside of the glasshouse nearest the mobile home overgrown with brambles.

10.3 Aerial photos (Appendix 8) show that the character and appearance of the land has changed over the relevant 10 year period, i.e. between 2010 to 2020. Up until 2015 (when the appellants purchased the land) there appears to be clear distinction between the smaller area of occupation where the mobile home was located at the southern end of the site and the (larger) northern part of the site, which remained largely untouched. This is evident in the aerial photos dated 2013 and 2014. The two parcels of land appear to be separated by a hedge and a fence (notwithstanding the ability to walk freely between the two parts of the land). It was only in 2015, when the appellants purchased the land from Mr Stone, that the appearance of the northern part of the land starts to change. Parts of the northern land were cleared (as shown in the aerial photo dated 22/04/2015) and a new close boarded fence erected around the eastern and northern boundaries. This resulted in the creation of a new 27

(larger) planning unit and is when a material change of use of the land would have taken place, from horticulture to garden land and storage purposes associated with the residential occupation of the mobile home. This therefore represents a material change in the use of the land, which is within 10 years of the enforcement notice being issued.

10.4 This material change in the use of the land in 2015, when then appellants bought the land and started to incorporate it into their residential unit, therefore created a new chapter in the sites history.

10.5 A material change of use of the land – from horticultural use to ancillary residential use and storage (or possibly from a mixed use for horticultural use and ancillary residential use and storage to ancillary residential use and storage) – has therefore occurred as a matter of fact.

11.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND D (TIME IMMUNE)

11.1 The onus is on the appellants to prove their case. The relevant test is the balance of probabilities.

Use of land

11.2 The Council’s own evidence confirms that in August 2010 (at the time of Mr Riding’s 2nd visits) the mobile home was being used as ancillary / overflow accommodation connected with Sunnybank. It was also accepted that the mobile home was within the residential curtilage of Sunnybank at that time. Hence the file was closed.

11.3 The area around the mobile home at that time, in 2010, only comprised a very small part of the appeal site. The remaining part of the land, including the glasshouse, would have been in horticultural use, albeit in a dormant state. Photographs taken by Mr Riding during his visits in May and August 2010 show the end part of the greenhouse nearest to the mobile home full of brambles and therefore unlikely to have been able to be used for anything specific. Anything stored there would have been at a de minis level.

11.4 The Council’s own evidence therefore suggests that in August 2010 (approx. 6 weeks before the relevant 10 year date) the only use occurring on the site was the siting of an ancillary mobile home which was within the residential curtilage of Sunnybank and being used in association with that property. The rest of the land, including the glasshouse, was in (dormant) horticultural use.

11.5 In 2015, the position changed when the appellants purchased the land and a new planning unit was created. At this time, a further material change of use of the land occurred, with the entire parcel of land being used for ancillary residential use and storage in connection with the unauthorised occupation of mobile home as a separate unit of residential accommodation. On this basis alone the appeal under ground (d) should fail - in respect of the use of land - as immunity cannot be achieved. 29

11.6 Moreover, the claims now being advanced by the appellants as to when they first occupied the site contradict the information that was given to the Council at the time by Mr Cox and what Mr Riding saw during his inspection of the mobile home in August 2010, which led him to conclude that the mobile home was being used for ancillary / overflow use to the dwelling and therefore closing the case. As such, an act of concealment occurred as the Council was deliberately misled and therefore denied the opportunity to take enforcement notice at that juncture had it know the true purpose / use of the mobile home and land at that time. The Connor principle is therefore engaged which prevents the appellants from claiming lawfulness in these appeals.

The creation of a single dwellinghouse

11.7 The LPA consider that, as a matter of fact and degree, the mobile home became a dwelling house as result of the works that were carried out in 2017 / 2018, namely:

i) The construction of a new pitched roof (over the existing roof of the mobile home) which was then tiled. ii) The addition of timber cladding (on a frame constructed) around the sides of the mobile home iii) The construction of an extension (to the bedroom) at the end of the mobile home. The work also involved the construction of a concrete base upon which the underside of the extension rests. iv) The construction of a concrete base below the lounge, which the underside of the lounge floor rests on.

11.8 It is the totality of these works that the LPA say, as a matter of fact and degree, resulted in the mobile home becoming a dwelling, due to the level of alterations to the size and structure and appearance of the mobile home, and also to its degree of permeance which was clearly intended to be a permanent form of accommodation.

11.9 It is understood that the extension and cladding have been built on an elaborate ring beam system, which means the structure does not have any foundations as such and therefore rests partly on the ground (using jack pads) and also on the concrete bases that have been constructed beneath the extension and the lounge floor. It is not therefore believed to be attached the ground. However, the lack of attachment to the ground is not itself an over- riding or determinative factor.

11.10 Determining whether a structure constitutes a building (i.e. operational development) for the purpose of Section 55 of the Act depends on its size and degree of permanence. Affixation to the ground is relevant but not the determining factor.

11.11 Relevant case law is:

• Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin [1949] 1 KB 385 – there are three primary factors to be considered: size, permanence and physical attachment.

• Measor v SSETR [1999] JPL 182 – it is generally the case that a mobile home would not satisfy the well-established definition of a building, with regard to the factors of permanence and attachment. However, court was wary of holding, as a matter of law, that a structure which satisfied the s13(1) definition could never be deemed a building for the purposes of the 1990 Act.

• Pugsley v SSE and N Devon DC [1996] JPL 124 – Where a caravan has permanent appendages, such as a blockwork surround, extension or conservatory, it is necessary to assess, as a matter of fact and degree, whether what is on the site has become a building.

• R (Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 2161 (Admin) – Large poultry units that were potentially mobile and were intended to be moved about the site

were held to be buildings or structures, notwithstanding that they were easily assembled on site, were designed to be moved on skids and could be easily dismantled and removed.

11.12 The upshot of the relevant caselaw is:

• Determining whether a caravan has become a building is a matter of fact and degree (Pugsley) • Relevant considerations are size, degree of permanence and affixation to the ground (Cardiff Rating Authority) • Large structures that are designed to be moved can still be buildings due to their physical appearance and visual impact (Woolley chickens) • A structure that meet the definition of a caravan could still constitute a building under Section 55 of the Act (Measor)

11.13 The relevant case law does not therefore provide a specific answer, but does provide a framework in which to assess whether the mobile home is a building.

11.14 It is understood that most of the work (apart from the concrete bases) were undertaken by Mr Snape, who is a competent DIY person but not a builder. There is no suggestion that any works were undertaken with either any input from, or consultation with, a structural engineer

Works to chassis in 2013

11.15 The appellants argue that the removal of the part of the chassis in 2013 as a result of replacing the original double doors with recycled patio doors (which were slightly taller and wider) meant that the structure of the mobile home had been compromised and that it could therefore no longer be moved at that point and meant that it no longer met the definition of a caravan. In support of this they provided two letters in their 2019 LDC application from a local haulage company and a local body works company stating that they both visited the site in 2015 and inspected the mobile home and concluded that it could not be moved and that the chassis could not be repaired. The letters were both 32

written in 2019, i.e. 4 years later. It is not considered that this represents sufficient detailed evidence to demonstrate that the works undertaken in 2013 compromised the structure of the mobile home that meant the mobile home could not be moved from that point onwards.

Works in 2015

11.16 It is not considered that the works that were undertaken in 2015, which were mostly internal, resulted in any change to the mobile home as a mobile home.

Intent

11.17 According to Mr Snapes witness statement in the 2019 LDC it was after they bought the site from Mr Stone in 2015 that they considered replacing the mobile home, but on the advice of the Haulage and Body work companies it was unlikely that they would be able to move the mobile home so decided to alter and improve it instead. This led to the internal works being carried in 2015 and then the external work (roof, cladding and extension) in 2017 / 2018 and the lowering of the lounge floor in April 2018. The purpose of these works was to make the mobile home more dwelling like, i.e. more attractive and with better insulation, which the previous mobile home, due its basic structure and low insulation was unable to provide them.

Concealment

11.18 The issue of concealment also applies to the alleged breach of planning control relating to the alleged creation of a single dwellinghouse as had the Council known that the appellants were occupying the mobile home in 2010 as a separate unit of accommodation, they would have had the opportunity to take enforcement action and therefore secured the cessation of the residential occupation of the mobile home at that point. The appellants would have not therefore been able to go on to undertake works to the mobile home in 2013 that they say resulted in the creation of a dwellinghouse more than 4 years ago and is therefore immune. 33

12.0 GROUND A (DEEMED APPLICATION)

Description of the site and its surroundings

12.1 The appeal site lies in an area known locally as Gravel Hill, situated to the north of the village of Shirrell Heath, which has very little services.

12.2 The nearest facilities are a primary school in Waltham Chase (1 mile by road) and a local shop also in Waltham Chase (1.3 miles by road).

12.3 The settlement of Swanmore, which has a level of facilities / services, including a secondary school and shop / post office, lies 1.3 miles (by road) to the north.

12.4 The settlement of Wickham, which has a ranges of shops and services is 2.3 miles away (by road) to south.

12.5 The appeal site is rectangular shaped, generally level and extends to approx. 0.16ha (0.4 acre). It forms part of a small cluster of buildings that include private dwellings, as well as an equestrian premise, a large commercial food distribution building (currently empty) and a small authorised traveller site.

12.6 Part of the site includes a large glasshouse that runs almost the entire eastern boundary. Its presence indicates that the land was previously used for horticulture. Market gardening was a common feature in this area.

12.7 The alleged dwelling / former mobile home occupied by the appellants and subject of these appeals is located along the southern boundary of the land, next to a detached property called Sunnybank. Sunny is owned and occupied by Richard Stone (the Rule 6 party in this appeal).

12.8 There is access into the site via double metal gates at the northern end. There is also a recessed parking area and pedestrian gate leading to the accommodation unit along the eastern side. 34

12.9 The site is accessed via an unmade track off Gravel Hill, which serves as the access to a number of other properties and premises. Visibility egressing from the track onto Gravel Hill is limited

12.10 The village of Shirrell Heath does not have a settlement boundary. For the purpose of planning policy, the appeal site lies in the countryside.

Planning policy

12.11 The development plan comprises:

- Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 – Joint Core Strategy (adopted 2013)

- Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management and Site Allocations (adopted April 2017)

12.12 Relevant policies are:

MTRA4 – Development in the Countryside (LLP1) DM1 – Location of Development (LLP2) CP16 – Biodiversity (LLP2)

A copy of these policies is attached at Appendix 9.

Note (1): A closer inspection of the policy map (Appendix 10) has indicated that the site is also situated within a settlement gap between Shirrell Heath and Swanmore (Policy CP18). The purpose of Policy CP18 is to prevent development that would physically or visually dimmish the gap. However, this was not mentioned as an issue in the Reasons for Issuing the Notice and is not therefore being pursued by the LPA in these appeals. A copy of Policy CP18 is included as part of the policy extracts in Appendix 9 for information.

Note (2): The reasons for issuing the notice includes reference to Policy CP17 (Flooding, Flood Risk and the Water Environment). There is some overlap between CP16 and CP17 in terms of protecting the water quality and the quality of rivers within the district, it is not considered that that this policy is directly relevant to the nitrate issue, which is dealt with in CP16. Policy CP17 is not therefore being relied upon in these appeals. A copy of Policy CP17 is included as part of the policy extracts in Appendix 9 for information.

12.13 The development is situated outside of a designated settlement boundary where countryside policies apply (Policy DM1).

12.14 Policy MTRA4 sets out the development types that are acceptable within the countryside, which are: development that has an essential need for the countryside such as agriculture and forestry; the reuse of existing buildings for employment, tourist accommodation, community use or affordable housing to meet a demonstrated local need; expansion or redevelopment of existing buildings to meet an operational need; small scale sites for low key tourist accommodation.

12.15 The proposal is for a new dwelling. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate an operational need, nor is the proposal for affordable housing, community or business use or tourist accommodation. The proposal does not therefore meet the criteria under MTRA4.

12.16 The site is located in the countryside beyond any defined settlement boundaries and in a location where there are limited facilities, amenities and public transport links. The proposal would introduce new housing development beyond the defined settlement limits and would be contrary to the objectives of securing sustainable patterns of development and the protection of the character of the countryside. Development at this location would undoubtedly place reliance on travel by car.

12.17 As such, the proposed dwelling is unwarranted and unjustified and would constitute unacceptable development in the countryside contrary to policy MTRA4.

12.18 In terms of design and visual impact, the dwelling is a single storey structure with a low-profile roof with cladding. It is not in itself unattractive or out of character with the area and would not therefore conflict with the development management policies in the local plan (LLP2) that require development to be of an appropriate design, visually attractive and in- keeping with its surroundings and the rural character of the area.

National Planning Policy Framework

12.19 The NPPF is material consideration.

12.20 Paragraph 79 of the framework states that planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless certain circumstances apply. None of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 79 apply. However, it is not disputed that the site is isolated or that the proposed dwelling would be an isolated home in the countryside either – given its location close to other dwellings and buildings.

12.21 Paragraph 79 should be read alongside the advice on Rural Housing set out in paragraphs 77 – 79 of the framework, which promotes “sustainable development in rural areas” and is consistent with the Council’s approach set out in its development plan where new housing is directed to larger towns and settlements with services, as well as allocated sites. Limited in-filling in some of the smaller rural settlements is also permitted under MTRA3. Development outside of settlement boundaries, which would include building of homes in more isolated locations within the countryside and which would be more unsustainable form of development are not permitted.

12.22 In view of its location to the north of Shirrell Heath, which itself has very limited services, the site is, in any case, situated in a relatively inaccessible location 37

where the occupants would be mainly reliant on the private car to get about and to access services. Consequently, it does not therefore comprise a sustainable form of development, and as a such, derives very little support from the overarching aims and principles of the framework.

Nitrates

12.23 The Solent water environment is internationally important for its wildlife and is protected under the Water Environment Regulations and the Conservation of Habits and Species Regulations as well as national protection for many parts of the coastline and their sea. Natural England has outlined serious concerns about high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous input in this water environment with evidence that these nutrients are causing eutrophication (a process which causes excessive growth of green algae) which is having a detrimental impact upon protected habits and bird species.

12.24 Much of Southern Hampshire, including the whole of the Winchester District is within the Solent catchment and Natural England has therefore advised that any development proposed through planning applications providing overnight accommodation which would discharge into the Solent would be likely to cause a significant effect. An Appropriate Assessment is therefore required to be carried out by the decision maker in order to determine whether the proposed development would cause harm to the protected Solent as a result of the nitrates in the wastewater generated by and discharged from the development.

12.25 Applicants (and appellants) are therefore required to provide all the information necessary including a nitrogen budget in order for the competent authority to carry out an Appropriate Assessment on any development, which could likely have a significant effect on the Solent European Sites protected as Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation under European Law. This is set out in the position statement on nitrate neutral development adopted by Winchester on 22 January 2020 (see Appendix 11). 38

Further details can be found at:

https://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning/wcc-position-statement-on-nitrate- neutral-development

12.26 In line with Policy CP16 of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy, and the Council’s position statement on nitrate neutral development, in order for any new residential development involving overnight stays to be lawfully be permitted, the applicant is required to show that the development will be nitrate neutral. This can include a package of avoidance and mitigation measures (either on-site or off-site) including the purchase of nitrate credits through an appropriate accreditation scheme. For schemes that are reliant on off-site mitigation measures, a Grampian condition has been used to secure the full avoidance and mitigation package prior to the occupation of the development.

12.27 In this case, however, as the development is already in situ and already in residential use by appellants, it is not possible to use the Grampian condition. As part of their appeal submission the appellants are required to demonstrate that the development is nitrate neutral, including satisfactory means of mitigation if necessary (either on-site or off-site). As the decision maker, the Inspector will be responsible for undertaking the Appropriate Assessment in order to determine whether the development would likely have an adverse impact on the Solent European Sites protected as Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation under European Law. As it stands and at the time of witing, it is not clear how the appellants intend to address the nitrate issue or whether they are able to demonstrate that the dwelling subject of the ground A appeal is nitrate neutral.

12.28 As the appropriate information in order to demonstrate nitrate neutrality has not been provided the proposal is contrary to Policy CP16 and the standing advice from Natural England. It is also contrary to Paragraphs 175 – 177 of the NPPF.

12.29 An appeal decision from Portsmouth City Council in 2019 (ref: 3213995 at 20 Montgomerie Road, Southsea) attached at Appendix 12 is an example where an inspector dismissed an appeal due to the Solent nitrate issue even though the development would only involve one additional occupant / bedroom within an existing 6 bed HMO.

Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership 5.6km Zone

12.30 Whilst preparing the Statement of Case it was established that the site is also situated just within the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership 5.6km Zone. A copy of the map is attached at Appendix 13.

Further details can be found at:

https://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning/solent-recreation-mitigation- partnership

12.31 All residential development within 5.6km of the SPAs’ resulting in a net increase in dwellings are required to make a contribution towards mitigation projects in the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy. This can be an upfront payment. This is an agreed approach with Natural England that constitutes appropriate mitigation under the Habitats Regulation.

12.32 Failure to make the payment, or provide an alternative method of mitigation, would be a further reason to refuse planning permission.

Planning balance

12.33 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Similar provisions also apply under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990).

12.34 The proposal is contrary to policy MTRA4 and CP16 and no other material considerations (or personal circumstances) have been raised by the appellants in their grounds of appeal that would override these established and well-reasoned policy objections.

12.35 Planning permission should therefore be refused

12.36 The fact that they have been living on the site (without planning permission) for 10 years or more is irrelevant – especially as there is a concealment issue that goes right back to 2010 when they first moved onto the site and enabled them to live on the site undetected until at least January 2018.

Suggested conditions

12.37 In the event that the Inspector is minded to grant planning permission the LPA have not identified any specific conditions that they would wish to see imposed.

12.38 The dwelling is already in situ and is being used residentially. The external materials are acceptable and the existing landscaping and boundary treatment is appropriate.

12.39 It may be necessary to impose a condition either specifying the extent of the residential curtilage, i.e. where Class E rights would be apply, or removing Class E rights from that part of the site that was extended in 2015.

12.40 It may also be necessary to impose a condition limiting the use of the glasshouse to ancillary storage purposes only.

13.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND F (LESSER STEPS)

13.1 The appellants ground (f) appeal relates in part to the argument put forward under ground (b) that part of the land has a lawful use for residential use and therefore the requirement for the residential use on this part of the land to cease should be removed from the requirements of the notice.

13.2 To get to ground (f), the inspector would have already dismissed the appeals under grounds (b), (d) and (a). If there was any merit in the lawfulness argument then it would have already been dealt with under these earlier grounds.

13.3 In order to remedy the alleged breach it is reasonable to require the unauthorised use of the land as ancillary residential use and storage to cease.

13.4 Whether or not the land (or the glasshouse) remains a viable proposition for horticulture is irrelevant. The notice does not require the land to be used for horticulture, so can be dormant, as indeed a large part of the site was before the breach occurred.

13.5 The suggestion that a caravan could remain on the land in association with the lawful garden use is a pretence. The notice alleges the creation of a dwellinghouse. In order to remedy the breach the dwellinghouse should be removed. There is no scope to allow any part of the dwelling or the original mobile home to remain on the land in the event that the notice is upheld.

14.0 APPEAL UNDER GROUND G (COMPLIANCE PERIOD)

14.1 Six months remains an appropriate and reasonable time frame for compliance.

14.2 The appellants have not advanced any meaningful reasons in their grounds of appeal why the compliance period should be extended.

14.3 A cursory search of internet websites such as Rightmove shows that there are a number of a mobile homes for sale or rent in the locality. Attached at Appendix 14 are the results of a search in Rightmove carried out on 26/5/21 showing the availability of Park Homes for sale within a 10 mile radius of SO32 2JQ up to £150,000. There are 12 properties available (1 and 2 beds). Note: entries on holiday sites were excluded from the search.

15.0 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - 2008 Enforcement Notice relating to Sunnybank

Appendix 2 - Documents from 2010 Enf File (10/00112/MIXED)

Appendix 3 - Copy of Land Registry (dated 21 November 2016)

Appendix 4 - Documents from 2016 Enf file (16/00294/CARAVN)

Appendix 5 - Documents from 2017 Enf file (17/00186/CARAVN)

Appendix 6 - Photos taken by Liz Marsden on 11 May 2018

Appendix 7 - Timeline of enforcement investigations, available photographic evidence, applications and other relevant information

Appendix 8 - Aerial photos (various from 2005 – 2019)

Appendix 9 - Copies of policies DM1, MTRA4 and CP16, and CP17 and CP18 (for info)

Appendix 10 - Policy map

Appendix 11 - Extract from WCC website and position statement on nitrate neutrality

Appendix 12 - Copy of appeal decision for 20 Montgomerie Road, Southsea

Appendix 13 - Map showing Solent Recreation Mitigation 5.9km buffer zone

Appendix 14 - Results of Rightmove search