Ian Jordan Click Here to Report This Email As Spam

Ian Jordan

From: Emily Temple Sent: 20 April 2016 15:09 To: Katie Herrington Subject: Bluebell Farm 152107

Dear Katie I have been approached in connection with the recently refused certificate of lawfulness application at the above site. I have reviewed the evidence and do not think it was submitted clearly to the council in their first application. Notwithstanding this I also note from the Council’s decision notice that the incorrect test has been applied; the decision notice refers to a higher test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ rather than the ‘balance of probability’. I am therefore minded to assist the landowner by either appealing against the Council’s decision with an application for costs (for the incorrect test being applied) or alternatively resubmitting a certificate of lawfulness application with clearer evidence. Please would you let me know if the Planning Authority would be agreeable to a new application being submitted. If it is the strict view of the Planning Authority that the development is not lawful then I will recommend my client appeal. I would also draw your attention to note that council tax cannot be requested for an independent C3 use that has not yet been granted lawfulness (as has been requested of my client). I look forward to hearing from you, Kind Regards Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group PLANNING | DESIGN | ENVIRONMENT | ECONOMICS Abbey House | Grenville Place | Bracknell | RG12 1BP T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales. This email and any associated files, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you should not use the contents nor disclose them to any other person. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately.

Click here to report this email as spam.

1 Ian Jordan

From: Ginny Parry on behalf of Planning Appeals Sent: 28 June 2016 14:28 To: Katie Herrington Cc: Justin Turvey Subject: FW: Notification of Appeal APP/X0360/X/16/3153354 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~ Attachments: 01 APPEAL FORM - 126241.pdf

Dear Katie,

Please see the attached pending appeal. I will let you know if I receive any grounds and when the start letter comes in.

Kind regards,

Ginny Parry Appeals Assistant Development & Regeneration - Planning Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices Shute End Wokingham RG40 1BN

Tel: 0118 974 6437 Email: [email protected] www.wokingham.gov.uk Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 June 2016 14:08 To: Planning Appeals Subject: Notification of Appeal APP/X0360/X/16/3153354

Appeals Casework Portal

A Certificate of Lawful Use or Development appeal has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. Details of the appeal are shown below:

Appeal Details Appeal Reference: APP/X0360/X/16/3153354 Appeal Receipt Date/Time: 28/06/2016 14:07 Appeal By: William Elgar Site Address: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane RG40 4PR Local Planning Authority: Wokingham Borough Council Attached is a copy of the appeal form.

Important Information: An email has been sent to the appellant/agent advising them that they must send a copy of the completed appeal form and any relevant supporting documents

1 not previously sent to you. If you have not received them within a few working days, you should contact the appellant to request them.

**Please do not reply to this message. - It is an automatically generated response from the mail delivery system.**

Click here to report this email as spam.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Emily Temple Sent: 21 April 2016 16:39 To: Katie Herrington Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm 152107 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

From: Katie Herrington [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 April 2016 16:29 To: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm 152107 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~ Dear Emily Thank you for your email. you are welcome to submit a new Certificate of Lawfulness application with clearer evidence. However, please note that such the evidence must demonstrate that the unit has been in continuous independent residential occupation for a period of 10 years. It is understood that the unit in question is a caravan, and as such 10 year test will need to be applied. Please note that the Planning Enforcement Team will be writing to your client to visit the site with a view to investigating the siting of caravans for residential occupation. Many thanks Katie Herrington From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2016 15:09 To: Katie Herrington Subject: Bluebell Farm 152107 Dear Katie

1 I have been approached in connection with the recently refused certificate of lawfulness application at the above site. I have reviewed the evidence and do not think it was submitted clearly to the council in their first application. Notwithstanding this I also note from the Council’s decision notice that the incorrect test has been applied; the decision notice refers to a higher test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ rather than the ‘balance of probability’. I am therefore minded to assist the landowner by either appealing against the Council’s decision with an application for costs (for the incorrect test being applied) or alternatively resubmitting a certificate of lawfulness application with clearer evidence. Please would you let me know if the Planning Authority would be agreeable to a new application being submitted. If it is the strict view of the Planning Authority that the development is not lawful then I will recommend my client appeal. I would also draw your attention to note that council tax cannot be requested for an independent C3 use that has not yet been granted lawfulness (as has been requested of my client). I look forward to hearing from you, Kind Regards Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group PLANNING | DESIGN | ENVIRONMENT | ECONOMICS Abbey House | Grenville Place | Bracknell | RG12 1BP T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Click here to report this email as spam.

DISCLAIMER You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by this Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee). The views expressed may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

2 All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the detection and eradication of viruses.

3 ------··== = =------

-~D~A~T~E~O~F~CO,=M~PL.=_BTI.=O~N:_~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-·---~·

MINISTRY- DECISION- SPECIAL ORDERS DRAINAGE -·- 091074 WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

Town and Country Planning Act 1990: sections 191 and 192

Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015: article 39

CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT

Notification of refused Certificate of Lawful Existing Use

Mr Peter Hayne.s The Lilacs Westbury Lane PurleyOn Thames, Reading, Wes rg8 8dl

Application Number: 152107

Wokill8ham Borough Council hereby cenlfies that on 10•• December 2015 (being the date of application for this cenlflcate) and subject to the conditions detailed below, the operations described in the First Schedule hereto ln respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged red on the plan attached to this certificate (plan A), has found to be not lawful within the meaning of section 291 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reasons:

Reasons 1. The proposed use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main dwelling constitutes development requiring planning permission. Pennfsslon is refused under s.1718(2) of the 1990 Act as it has not been adequately demonstrated that, beyond reasonable doubt, that the use of the chalet/mobile home is consistent with that of an independent habitable dwelling. As such, the use of the chalet/ mobile home as an independent dwelling Ts not lawful.

FIRST SCHEDULE Proposal: Application for a certificate of exisitng lawfulness for the use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main dwelling.

SECOND SCHEDL"LE Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR.

Site Address: Bluebell Fann, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR

Signed Clare Lawrence Head of Development Management & Regulatory Services Date: 08/01/2016 On behalf ofWokingham Borough Council, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG401WR

APPENDIX

There is oo time llmlt for the submission of appeals relating to Certific:a,t~ ofLawful Emling Use application,.

Appeal provisions of Sections 195 and 196 ofthe Town and Co\l!ltry Planning Act 1990, as amended by paragraphs 32 and 33 ofSchedule 7 to the Pllllllling 1111d Compensation Act 199 J and panign,ph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.

Appeals against refusal or failun: to give decision on application.

195 - (1) Where an llpl'lication is made to a local planning authority for a certificate under Section 191 or 192 end-

(a) the application i• ccfu...ed or is refused in part, or

(b) tho anthorily do not give notice to the applicant oftheir deci,ion on the application within such period as may be prescribed by a development order or within such extended period a• may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applic8lll and the authority, the applicant may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.

(2) On any such appeal, ifand so far as the Secretary of State is ~ati,ficd -

(a) in the case ofan appeal under subsectioo (J) (a), 1hat the authority's refusal is not well-founded, or

(b) in the case ofan appeal under ,11b.section(l) (b), that if the authority bad refused the application their refusal wo11ld not havo been well-founded, he shall gmnt the appellant a certificate under Section 191 or, as the case may be, 192 ;u;oordingly or, in the case ofa refusal in part, modify the certificate granted by the 1111thority on the applicatu'1L

(3) If and so far as the Secretary ofState is satisfied that the authority's refusal is or, ao the ca.se may be, would have been well-founded, he shall dismiss the appeal.

(4) Reference, in this section to a refusal of 1111 application in part include a modification or sllb~titution ofthe deseription in the application ofthe U$e, operation~ ot olher matter in question.

(5) For the pwposes ofthe application of sectioJJ 288(10) (b) in relation to an appeal in a case within ~11bsection (1) (b) it shall be assumed that the a11thority decided to refuse the application in question.

(6) Schedule 6 applies to appeals under thi• =1ion.

Further provisions as to reterences a11d IIPPcals to the Secretary ofState.

196 - (1) Before determining an "PPCal to him under Section 195(1), the Secretary of Sbitc shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so wieb, give each ofthem a11 oppommity of appe11ring betbre, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for tbc p11rpose. (2) Where the Secreiary ofS1'lte grants a certi&are under Section 191 or 192 on ,-ucb an appool, be shall give notice to the local planning lllllhority ofthat fact.

(3) The decision of the Secretary of Stale on such an appeal shall be fin.al.

(4) The infoimation which may bo pre=ibed as being required to be contained in a register kept under Section 69 shall include information with respect to certificates under Section 191 or 192 gnmed by the Secrotary of State.

(8) Subs~on (5) of Section 250 of the Loclll Government Act 1972 (which authorises a Minister holding an inquiry under that section to mak-e orders with respect to the costs of th~ parties) shall apply in relation to any procee ' ··---,---·--·----... ------. i I i I ! I i ,.. I l .._ .... I I i I ., ' I

) I , / _., .,"'' / ...... ' Wlldmlll '-..... I ·, ·-. •, -- I ·--;- ··-·i---. , I i -- .... ,.'>:l~ I I ··- \ I - 'J -. .. -- I ! I i

i !

. i I ! ' •. I ' ·, ' ' l l -··· ' '· : i ;' .' ·· - ' \/;/ / /,,. '. !,: : Ji l i ,.

' . /: ! ·,, / ,.· ,1 .. <;". ,•, . · , .~,:...... ::-~~:-::==:::::::=:~ ·-·--·· '· --·-· ..

N !PLU NEIGH_CTEE. ----- !1:1250 W ,·· E c1v1ca s -:r- - -·~ p 11 i) 1:

...... _ ...... , - ... ::_~ -7 ., .;' ., .,, ... "' ,~ .... .,. ... - ... ..- ... ., -·__._,, ?\_ ~~- \> LL

----·-----·------~------Tel: 0118 974 6614 (Direct Line) Email: [email protected] Ref: RFS/PPT/2016/082803 1 WOKINGHAM Date: 16 h June 2016 BOROUGH COUNCIL

Mr William Elgar Bluebell Farm Development Management Commonfield Land P.O. Box 157 Barkham Shute End, Wokingham Wokingham Berkshire RG40 1WR Berkshire Tel: (0118) 974 6000 RG40 4PR Fax: (0118) 974 6484 Minicam No: (0118) 977 8909 DX: 33506 - Wokingham

Th.ts I e tter me. I ud es a orma/ nof ice to wh. ,c h vou mus t resr,on d

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Reference: RFS/PPT/2016/082803 Site: Bluebell Farm , Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Without planning permission, the change of use of land , creating hardstanding and positioning a mobile home & use of that mobile Allegation: home as living accommodation

Dear Mr Elgar;

I write regarding a recent visit to the site, when it was noticed that there appears to be a mobile home situated at the above property regarding which, the local authority does not have any records of Planning Permission. Enclosed with this letter is a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) This notice is being served upon you because the Local Planning Authority has reason to believe that a breach of planning control may be ocuirring.

You are legally required to respond to it within 21 days. Please read the PCN carefully. Should you need anything in the corre:spondence to be explained or if you would prefer to make a representation in person please contact me to arrange a date and time.

If you are unsure about the requirements of notice you should take it and this letter to a Citizens Advice Bureau or a Solicitor who will be able help you

Yours sincerely

Philip Thorneywork Plannning Enforcement Officer Development Management (Enforcement) 1WOKINGHAM !BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTICE

IMPORTANT-THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLJ~NNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

Ref: RFS/IPPT/2016/082803

SERVED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE is served by the Council because it appears to them that there may have been a breach of planning control, within section 171A (1) of the above Act, at the land described below. It is served on you as a person who appears to be the owner or occupier of the land or has another interest in it, or who is carrying out operations in, on, over or under the land or is using it for any purpose. The Council require you, in exercise of their powers under section 171 C (2) and (3), so far as you are able, to provide certain information about interest in, and activities on, the land.

2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE RELATES Land at Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, Wokingham Berkshire RG40 4PR ('the Land') shown edged by a red line on the attached plan.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTR:OL ALLEGED

Without planning permission, the change of use of "the Land" for the siting of a caravan or Mobile home for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding.

4. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Provide in writing, the following information:

1. The name and address of any person(:s) known to you as having an interest in "the Land" whether as freeholder, mortgagee, les5,ee or otherwise.

2. Do you have any interest "the Land" & if so what is that interest?

3. When did your interest in "the Land" commence? 4. What was "the Land" used for before its use for the siting of a caravan/Mobile home for human habitation?

5. When was the creation of hardstanding on "the Land" substantially completed?

6. Who occupies the caravan I Mobile home on the land?

7. Do you or any person or company, collect or receive rent or any other payment, either directly or indirectly, from the occupie,rs the caravan/Mobile home?

8. If the answer to 7 above is "yes", from whom is it received?

9. Are there any tenancy agreements for the occupiers of the caravan/Mobile home?, if so, please provide details?

10. Does any of the occupiers of the caravan/Mobile home have any special medical or social needs? If so please state name, age & Issue / need

11. Is there any school age child residingi on a permanent basis in the caravan/Mobile Home & if so, please state name age & at which school do they attend?

12. Is there anything else you wish to add?

I hereby declare that the information I have provided in completing this questionnaire is true and accurate to the best of my knowled9e:

Signed: Dated:

Print Name: Time within which the information must be prnvided: within twenty-one days, beginning with the day on which this notice is served on you:

5. OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE If you wish to make an offer to apply for planning permission, or to refrain from carrying out any operations or activities, or to undertake: remedial works; or to make any representations about this notice, the Council, or representatives of the Council by prior arrangement will consider them at Council Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR should you make an appointment , where you will be able to make any such offer or representations in person at that time and place.

6. WARNING It is an offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any requirements of this notice within twenty-one days beginning with the day on which it was served on you. The maximum penalty on conviction of this offence is a fine of £1,000. Continuing failure to comply following a conviction will constitute a further offence. It is also an offence knowingly or recklessly to give information, in response to this notice, which is false or misleading in a material particular. The maximum penalty on conviction of this offence is a fine of £5,000.

If the Council serve a stop notice, under section 183 of the 1990 Act, section 186( 5)(b) of the 1990 Act provides that should you otherwise become entitled ( under section 186) to compensate for loss or damage attributablle to that notice, no such compensation will be payable in respect of any loss or damage which could have been avoided had you given the Council the information required by this notice, or had you otherwise co-operated with the Council when responding to it.

1 Dated: 16 h June 2016

Signed: Council's Authorised Officer

Development Management & Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG401WR Site Plan of rg40 4pr

0 I c:1 // I I II ' / \ I I I I I / I I '-. /I . ... -···' f .,1J / / i I

Th, Aa-,ioouoesthe !Qlkiwrg ucwse:, Dae. OSMaste<~ COlcu PDF Ste A cJ1 by tie OtJncme S.ney Nalia,a Q;ograi:t,ic DalilaSle a-id inc.of p:.,r i;0"),1 Om 20n 4Qm 60n 100m su111eyed 1e-.isirn avalal:Je at 11e dife o! p odUcl on A:µ<>'.ll.i:tion h v.1))1~ 01 n pa-I is p-Ohitit-?d wlhoul t~ r,r~-v p:irntssc-'l of o·rna.oE: SU-11ey Thi:: 1e1Jese111cfion of a1oai, 11 OCl( CA ~ is no e ~ OOl"l(l;; Of a 11~1 of wa:1 The reJ:(esen1cfiono11eerues. ashnes ism e11den::eof a~coi:,,Er1y OOl.l)(Ja y C Scale: 1: 1250, paper size: A4 Oow, ropyrljlt .n::1

v,-emapsite , Site Plan of rg40 4pr

lhs Acri lrr.ll.KIP..Stne !ol!o.... ll,l UoensEO DW1 ropyrgnt end dliaba,e ri9')tS, 2014 Q(t1a"re &r \l:f')' 01CXXI':l167'3

t. emapsite 1WOKINGHAM PU\~. ~ NG 4 BOROUGH courc~ o • "_20_16 __1

I E_S l PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTl~.Ec.PJG' I

IMPORTANT· THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLJ!~NNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

Ref: RFS/PPT/2016/082803

SERVED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE is served by the Council because it appears to them that there may have been a breach of planning control, within section 171 A ( 1) of the above Act, at the land described below. It is served on you as a person who appears to be the owner or occupier of the land or has another interest in it, or who is carrying out operations in, on, over or under the land or is using it for any purpose. The Council require you, in exercise of their powers under section 171 C (2) and (3), so far as you are able, to provide certain information about interest in, and activities on, the land.

2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE !RELATES Land at Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, Wokingham Berkshire RG40 4PR ('the Land') shown edged by a red line on the attached plan.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTRtOL ALLEGED

Without planning permission, the change of use of "the Land" for the siting of a caravan or Mobile home for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding.

4. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Provide in writing, the following information:

1. The name and address of any person(s) known to you as having an interest in "the Land" whether as freeholder, mortgagee, lessee or otherwise . . ~,\\,O\\,\ eL~ ~ Su S~ C:S__ .C:;1\-R _

p\'1\et:>-e\\ ~0\VW\ (_,QVYWY\l~\'~\O\ Wt\fle. KB; 4-o 4- '? R. 2. Do you have any interest "the Land" & if so what is that interest? Dw ("') e...v-

3. When did your interest in "the Land" commence? XV\0\V c l-. ::2.-oo""t- 4. What was "the Land" used for before its use for the siting of a ee, ava, dMutne I ,ou,e for human habitation? ~..:.ard ·€)1 \

5. When was the creation of hardstanding on "the Land" substantially completed? ~'vv-, \ ~2-0, 0 7ve. ~~c.a..-\-e.o\ c . \Ao..\et- 6. Who occupies the wre.oR / Moelle home on the land? (_M~ Sor-, ) i-2t= 2'-~ -\-" w~ ~ cL\d\

7. Do you or any person or company, collc3ct or receive rent or any other payment, either _\ directly or indirectly, from the occupiers the caJa.a, i/Moeile home? ·~hCO\\ep\ c\Ao.\-ei ~t)

8. If the answer to 7 above is "yes", from whom is it received ?

9. Are there any tenancy agreements for the occupiers of the caravan/Mobile home?, if so, please provide details? Na

·~o~ C~O\\-e\- 10. Does any of the occupiers of the ~".!M1 ,bile home have any special medical or social needs? If so please state name, age & Issue / need ~\\\,'o..yv",,. ~\50-v n'\-eo-,o"-c w f"\1,,wS"'Y:.:)

Yv-~l!c..b'v\ c:_°'\ev( C ~°'\ ~ · 11. Is there any school age child residing on a permanent basis in the oeF~obile Home & if so, please state name age & at which school do they attend? N,\\,o.~ z\50-v-- ~,e_ 3 \y\e.o,.cJ...o\N \'\VWSC\0

12. Is there anything else you wish to add? O\~?e.o..\ o--..'.:)o..~s\-- f\fp\,C-c-.~;.__ S

I hereby declare that the information I have provided in completing this questionnaire is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:

Signed: VV ' mrrr' Dat1ed : ;;z,--q-tL JV\ f\-e_ ?D, 6 Print Name: \ 52....b~ V\~S De~ 5v-b ~ .\-\-ect\ ~,8LerAY2 I ~-\-\,--.L o\-eve\o~ ~· ,S 1--.0.+1 \ Time within which the information must be provided: within twenty-one days, beginning with the day on which this notice is servetd on you:

5. OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE If you wish to make an offer to apply for planning permission, or to refrain from carrying out any operations or activities, or to undertake~ remedial works; or to make any representations about this notice, the Council, or representatives of the Council by prior arrangement will consider them at Council Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR should you make an appointment , where you will be able to make any such offer or representations in person at that time and place.

6. WARNING It is an offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any requirements of this notice within twenty-one days beginning with the day on which it was served on you . The maximum penalty on conviction of this oftfence is a fine of £1,000. Continuing failure to comply following a conviction will constitute a further offence. It is also an offence knowingly or recklessly to give information, in response to this notice, which is false or misleading in a material particular. The maximum penalty on conviction of this offence is a fine of £5,000.

If the Council serve a stop notice , under section 183 of the 1990 Act, section 186(5)(b) of the 1990 Act provides that should you otherwise become entitled (under section 186) to compensate for loss or damage attributable to that notice, no such compensation will be payable in respect of any loss or damage which could have been avoided had you given the Council the information required by th is notice, or had you otherwise co-operated with the Council when responding to it.

Dated: 15th June 2016

Signed: Council's Authorised Officer

Development Management & Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR Site Plan of rg40 4pr

/ I ...... ('...... __'I / I .I

\ \ I II / <.. I II ' •. •·. '·. ••·· ... ' lj ' '\, I ...... I I ...... / . ,J; \ '•, /l; -····· ', I I/ ' '\ I I' ' •, l / I I I

This A,n 1001.ldestne 1o11<,w~ Ucenseo Oala OS Master~ Co!e d~ ot p od!£1on. A::pod.Jctoo i1 wu~ ,:,r n pat is p otlitifl:d wtholrt ne ()'IOI permlssmof Q',:tiiJ]()e; &J'V(;y T~ rep esentalion ol aroa1. tra:ll GI l)

a tl',,. emapsite Bluebell Farm

Planning 1:750

I, William Elgar, of Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 4PR ("the Property•) d<> solemnly and sincerely declare that: t. I am the owner of the Property. I have ownedihe Property since March 2007;

2. There is now shown to me mar1

3. There are no separate utility bills for the chalet as the chalet is occupied by my son and the electricity is drawn from the main bungalow which I occupy. The chalet's gas is supplied by gas bottles which are regularly replaced by a local company called Portable Gias Supplies.

4. There is now shown to me marked 'WE2", the email dated B" June 2015 from Euan Livingstone, a Police Offic:er and family friend who has regularly visited the Property. Mr Livingstone confirms in his email that chalet has been at the Property for the last 5-6 years; s. There is now shown to me mariked "WE3· the letter dated 20111 January 2015 from Mr P Wilkins, the propriietor of Portable Gas Supplies. Mr Wilkins confirms that he has been supplying gas refills to the chalet sinc:e 2010 and continues to do so.

6. There is now shown to me marked 'WE4", the invoice dated 2oth April 2010 which shows that the chalet was1 purchased in 2010.

111 7. There is now shown to me marked "WE5" a letter dated 5 January 2015 from Mr W Russell. Mr Russeill confirms in his letter that the chalet was delivered to the Property in Aprill 2010.

and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. Declared at: ,,2 -rl,..... (!.,,.,.'fr.1, j,.,...cvJ df~.,_~ /,y,,k,t_, @'.(r\, :rc.. lfrfo./,fz. on I rll, day of ~k~ k.1 2015 ;;;;:i~~~~ ~1;~~·i~adm~~~lh:Jrr - p_ A .d. . ~u, Ar,.J ~ 1- ,c,n,<. _I J'I I I L I'. ' • I • -\ '

I l '1 l • l 1\ I IP II I', }. The C1111'1\,HJ, 1 1t•1H11.1r ~ ... , ,. 1 '\ ,l, 1 I , I I 1 l:1 11 1~ \/ I I !1 • I This is the exhibit marked "WE1· refem~d to in the statutory declaration of William Elgar sworn on I t~day of f9ft...,.bv' 2015. Before me: I') }£fl j Signed ...... ll .... ~ ...... Commissioner for oaths or a solicitor empowered to administer oaths. 1'*1j ______l 'J

H••' 1 1 l I :11 • I • 1111 Ill'[ .I il l " ' ,,; ,1 - \2 f I I . I ,, ,, 1 I

2 Site Plan of rg40 4pr

I /

Scale: 1: 1250, pa~ &i.ie: A4

plans ahead byemapsite This is the exhibit mar1

l \ ·1l 1 \ l ...... t.. 11 ,.111 n o r~ 2 T he: L , J1t1 1v.1rJ, J )~ 1Hn.1 rl ~frt:t I \\.'11 ~1 11d1;un , l{<:r~ ,l,,rl· l!t 14( 2 ·\Z k \ l'l t~ ''1\l )1'\1 1

3 Fwd: Verification e-mail

Kingsley Mon. Jun 8 . 2015 at 2:38 PM To: Peter Haynes Cc: [email protected]

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bill Elgar Date: 8 June 2015 14:04:09 BST To: "[email protected]" Subject: FW: Verification e-mail

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Verification e-mail Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11 :59:15 +0000

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Bluebell Farm, Common Field Lane, Wokinoham, Berkshire. RG40 4PR.

I am writing this e mail to verify information that lhas already been passed to you by Mr W Elgar regarding the standing of a chalet on his land.

I have been friends with Mr Elgar and his two soins for nearly 20 years. I have spent time at there house and visited the family during special occasions s:uch as birthdays. During this time I have seen the family move to the above address and transfom1 it from run down land Into a beautiful home.

During this time a Chalet was erected for one of Mr Elgar's sons to live in with his wife. I can not confirm the exact date that this occurred but would estimate 5-6 years ago.

Mr Elgar has asked me to provide this e mail due to my job role in support of the suppliers who built and erected the chalet. I am a Police Officer and have been for the past 10 years. During that time I have signed passport photos for the family and been able to verify information for situations that require endorsement from a professional e.g. doctor, Police officer etc. I am happy to be contacted to further verify any specific details if I am able to help.

Kind Regards

Euan Livingstone

84 Holliers Crescent Middle Barton Chipping Norton Oxfordshire OX77HN

(m) 07983113568 This is the exhibit marked "WE3~ refermd to in the statutory declaration of William Elgar sworn onJ~day of ~v~!V 2015. Before me µfl fi Signed ...... '-' ...... ~ ...... Commissioner for oaths or a solicitor empowered to administer oaths.

I' t- ·r r Jt. ,•

1\-11 T I\ ( ..... ,, P l ' I, ' I 2 ThLl., 1111 1v,1rJ, Dc.:n111.n l '1rrt t.,\'i ,i111 l11 111 , l 1tl 11, 1,,11 1 . ,L 1. I ' l i ,· ' " ·,( ,\

4 .2cj, /1;-

~il/1·0 h~ t~,, ~·~·;.;/~,, ,~.+-(4, to M, t~Iiv-/ ~f

(I 2c,c -r- . - vlSC.. (.1.,,(- : '<:. 1./(r; [. (c. tlv.-_ /

.Sc.. ,. 65 .-J. &, '-- -·· -· ( (. 0 ,...,t: ·,,. - t /~

~ / S t,l c...t--\.-.7

, ·--•. ·, I -·:,:i·\~ Longmoor Fann c..--- . Parl< Lane Ancnampsread Wokingham h,, t_t,( , N:, P. P.t:i 40 'ffTf Phone 01 r697624n Fai( 01189762~3 This is the exhibit marked "WE4" referreid to in the statutory declaration of William Elgar sworn on I r l... day 09 .__.~',/ 2015. Before me: r7 ~ ..1 Signed ...... 8 ..... ~ ...... Commissioner for oaths or a solicitor ennpowered to administer oaths.

mg - flE .. t'' f I. J:. ' • I \) 1' l'l,J

I il f \ I • I • I ll J 1(111 11 LT/, ._, Hh ir ,J, I 11-11111 ,1' "l•n·' \\'i l1H!1• 1.1111 H,.- r. ( 11r 1 r.l i4Ct 2.·\2 I I ~I j ' I d'.

5 ift~/iire ome~

Miss L Barney Bluebell farm Common Field Lane Barkam Berks RG404PR

.. 20/04/10

Order for Wiltshire Home "Burleigh" 38 x 20 - custom style and fit. Home is to be built to drawn specifications as follows:

1 x double bedroom to include top boxes O\/er bed, 2 sidetable draws, 2 double full length wardrobes. 1 x double bedroom with walk-in wardrobe, topboxes over bed, 2 sidetable draws. Entrance hall Dining room Bathroom (customer to fit bathroom) finish to plumbing fit and plaster board walls. Kitchen (fitting tbc) Lounge All bedrrom furniture to be in cream gloss fllat panelling Cream carpet to be fitted throughout excep1t bathroom and kitchen.

We as the manufacturer guarantee the home as per the attached guarantee document. We have agreed to reassemble the home on site upon delivery. Full payment must be received before the home is split for removal. WE DO NOT take responsibility for any damage to the home whilst it is being transported, the liability for it lies with the haulier whilst in his care.

The total amount payable for this home is £36500.00

(By signing this document you are In full acceptance of It's term, and conditions and of the attached certifk:ate of guarantee.)

half of the company Date ~~If Customer Signature Date

Malthouse Cottage Farm, Brinkworth, Wilts, SNl S SBY tel: 01666 510414 or 07854222307 This is the exhibit marked "WES" referred to in the statutory declaration of William Elgar sworn ou/". day off'iVt,Jp,e/ 2015. Before me: IJ!fi. ,1 Signed ··········---~-- ...... ~ ...... Commissioner for oaths or a solicitor empowered to administer oaths. _I _ I '

I I 11 I , I ~ I ,ut i1_ I~, I 11, l~l i4r· 2t\Z 2 The CntHP,i,ir.l I l''''' ' · \ I l I '

6 To whom it may concern.

In March 2010 I was asked by Mr Elgar if I could deliver a new Mobile Horne to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham. We proceeded to carryout this for him the las"·~ k of the following month April 2010. CASE OFF W'OKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL 1 'l ,'..!L 7.015

PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTICE Rf PL.lfD IMPORTANT - THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLAN~JING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

Ref: RFS/2.016/082803

SERVED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE RELATES Land at Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, Wokingham Berkshire RG40 4PR ('the Land') shown edged by a red line on the attached plan.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED

Without planning permission, the change of use of "the Land" for the siting of two caravans/mobile homes for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding. These are referred to as caravan/mobile home 1 and 2 on the attached plan.

4. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Provide in writing, the following information:

1. The name and address of any person(s) known to you as having an interest in "the Land" whether as freeholder, mortgagee, lessee or otherwise. W\\ \\°'-m ~d ScASo-0 ';z_~~'f," .. ""2:>VJ\ ~ -e\ \ -~ \r \-y\ , c.. oVV\. 'fl'\O'\ \' e\o. k 0\0 e , ,~ ~v, li\ 'fv\ o~~ -~~~o L\- ?~ 2. Do you have any interest "the Land" & if so what is that interest? Qt,~ \'\€..V""

3. When did your interest in "the Land" commE:mce? 4. When was the creation of hardstanding on "the Land" substantially completed? Q ;~\~t:n----. v"'1c.\~ CA.5 ~o ~.hJ:L \-,Owc\.~c.l~'\ ex,.s.h.;._o C\t -n ~ ...r ?I.AV<:._\, ,~1.x. 1 CoV\G'v-€..K ~1n-o\e11~0"-·.C....r c:_\;..c-, \ e.\ Af7~ ~ .i.c, o ~~~ C..\.-.o._\ ~t \'°v 5. Who occupies cara.}ans/mcbile homes 1 and 2 on "the Land"?

~-e c.._\,...._e,_ \--e..\ l-e.-.e. ..- ~~ s ..e... ~ \3CI v C,YY'l o\ ..So,("\ v<) , \ \ ,·a..11...... _ C-4. \,--q,,.,\f C- '2 O C..c:..'-"'-p 1~o\ ~'-S~ c_c;...._vc,v-c-- c. ~b 6. Do you or any person or company, collect or receke~r~l or a,ni otterJ)ayment, either directly or indirectly, from the occupiers the caravans/~i~omestf ~

,\~s --To c.o...:vCAv Ov-- .2- n~ \-o c__~c:1-.\--e\-.

7. If the answer to 6 above is "yes". from whom is it received? C-0.-v°' V6v- z.. ~ 5 cP\.,v€.. -rvoyY\ CO\\.i&.VCNn c...LA6 Vv lQ VvJo~ ' ~1~+ 8. Are there any tenancy agreements for the occupiers of the caravans/rAeeile 1-lgmes 1 and 2. if so, please provide details? (\(). .f ve ~\;. <=-v--c-\A 9. Do any of the occupiers of the caravans~>eile lu;mes- 1 and 2 have any special medical or social needs? If so please state name, age and issue/need. no,

c.. \AO\\ e\ 10. Are there any school age children residing on a permanent basis in the caravans/a:iobile AefftOS 1 and 2 and if so, please state nam«~ age & at which school do they attend? (\')·€ck\~~ . N\\\,i,;,v-. ~~v ,,,1-c:o.0\0L0 r-!vwS0.v_j · C\'3e ·3 ?ve t.1o c..h~\ -€ \_- 11 . What are the manufacturer details for the two cara-~a--;,s/meeile ~emes 1 and 2 (eg make. model)? 't'A e._ C."'°' \~ \- '(') Q() e_ , ~ Vo-..'\J · Cv,r-.. 2 \ ~\"\c_ C>\ ~ ~~~

D ~r· 1 1---t \l) ~ \A °' \..e \ 12. How were the car vans/meeile Rames 1 and 2 brought to the site (eg towed, transporter, how many pieces) and were the steel frames attached? , \ ~e_ C:::::..\.~\-e\- ~~().,)...L ~'.... C::t€.V -\-t:i y>~ v\"O(A.~ z_~C\.,\ \\ \--\:..-:3"\A~?Cl\o, ~ ,,..~YCl'v- 2- ~ c:,--i, e. ? ' ~ -;)~. C..C1 -o..\ -€\ 13. How was th~ car van/mebtkfl,mAe , , you refer to as a "chalet", put together once brought on to "the Land"? Describe how it is set on the concrete base, attached to its steel frame, supported, bricked in and any fixing points or supports. 1 ·7\ea./).c. ~ ~12,v- .-\-b ye5 otb~s ~ W\o.-,\ l \ ~ J \,\b '2 0 I.a

?l,-L ~ b C::V\O-1-e+ 14. Did you apply for Building Regulations for t~k·~ravan4Aebile-home you refer to as a "chalet", if not, why not? 15. Is there anything else you wish to add? ""\~ C,.avvo--v c- 2.... C.o'vy-, b -e. VeyiQ.Ceo \. ~ 0 O" -\-o,'"v"'-n~ C...c>-.:vo-v(J,...,-.... >·~ rZ ~ , ~ \ • I hereby declare that the information I have provided in completing this questionnaire is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:

Signed: W ·'cS()o\( • Print Name: ~ \\\,~~ 5-..G(A'R Time within which the information must be provided: within twenty--one days, beginning with the day on which this notice is served 0111 you:

5. OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE If you wish to make an offer to apply for planning permission, or to refrain from carrying out any operations or activities, or to undertake remedial works; or to make any representations about this notice, the Council, or representatives of the Council by prior arrangement will consider them at Council Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR should you make an appointment, where you will be able to make any such offer or representations in person at that time and place.

6. WARNING It is an offence to fail , without reasonable excuse, to comply with any requirements of this notice within twenty-one days beginning with the day on which it was served on you. The maximum penalty on conviction of this offenc1e is a fine of £1 ,000. Continuing failure to comply following a conviction will constitute a further offence. It is also an offence knowingly or recklessly to give information, in response to this notice, which is false qr. misleading in a material particular. The maximum penalty on conviction of this offence is a fine of £5,000.

7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you fail to respond to this notice, the Council may take further action in respect of the suspected breach of planning control. In particular, they may issue an enforcement notice, under section 172 of the 1990 Act, requiring the breach, or any injury to amenity caused by it, to be remedied. lf the Council serve a stop notice, under section 183 of the 1990 Act, section 186(5)(b) of the 1990 Act provides that should you otherwise become entitled (under section 186) to compensate for loss or damage attributable to that notice, no such compensation will be payable in respect of any loss or damage which could have been avoided had you given the Council the information required by this notice, or had you otherwise co-operated with the Council when responding to it.

1 Dated: 13 h July 2016

Council's Authorised Officer

Development Management & Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR _,./ 54.3m _,../ ,---..__---- ....----- .• :----..:;--..• I .· . . ~ I ;-. l. -----~~~~ I ·-.. ------:~ . - ·- .------//,,....--- . ..---·~. c------..___ Ii .,.,-----~ ------·------.....__ ·--, / / \ \ ------'- . ,,,~ \ ------,~~ .\/ Finches \, ·------f-.._ \ ~, \\ \\ ------...... \ _,/\ -- // \ '\ / ',\ \\ ------.._ \ \ \ < \ \ Approximate \ '· -- ' , location of caravan/ -----

' \ ,,,,/ \ mobile home 1 - \ '\ \ \ "chalet" /,, \ \ Pine \ .. \ ' '\ I \ \' ) \ \ Lodge \ \/··· \ \ \ ' \\ \ I \ '·. I \ \ \ I \___! \ \ \ '\ \ Bluebell Farm \ r------,--i / f I \ \ / G / <___ I ------.J

\ I I I Approximate I ; I · ._ location of caravan/ I i \ obile home 2 ./ I I i \ I ' I I

I I / I I ; I / I I I I , I I ' I , ,J' I II N Bluebell Farm w E WOKINGHAM Planning 1:750 BOROUGH COUNCIL

S © Crown copyright and database rights (2015) Ordnance Survey 100019592 Land adj to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham

Planning 1:500

THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

File Reference RFS/2016/082803

S16 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended)

To: Owners and Occupiers of land adjacent t,o Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR shown edged by a thick red line on the attached plan ("the Land")

REQUISITIONS FOR INFORMATION

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Provisions of Section 16 of the Loca l Government (Misce llaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended) Wokingham Borough Council ("the Council") hereby REQUIRES YOU WITHIN 14 DAYS after the date on which t his Notice is served to reply in writing to the Council with the information requested below:

1. Your name and address

2. Are you the Owner of the Land - Yes/Mo

3. Names and ages of any children (under 18 years) living in the caravan/mobile home

4. Names and ages of children living at the Land who are attending a local school together with the name of that school

5. Names and ages of any persons w it h a registered disability living in the ca ravan/mobile home

6. Names and ages of any persons living at the Land with special needs that make them a vulnerable member of the community

7. Are any of the occupiers of the caravan/mobile home a Gypsy or Traveller - Yes/ No 8. Anything else you would like the Counicil to be aware of?

This information is required by Wokingham Borough Council in pursuance of its functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: namely the preparation of enforcement action under S171 and S172 of the Town and Country Planning A1ct 1990 as amended

DATED: 16 August 2016

SIGNED: ~r v~ (Council's Authorised Officer) Wokingham Borough Council,

PO Box 157, Civic Offices, Shute End,

Wokingham RG40 1WR

NOTE

Section 16 of the Lo ca l Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides as follows:

(1) Where with a view to performing a funi ction conferred on a local authority by any enactment the authority considers that it ought toi have information connected with any land the authority may serve on one or more of the following persons, namely: a. The occupier of the land; and b. Any person who has an interest in the land either as freeholder, mortgagee or lessee or who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land; and c. Any person who in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it

A notice specifying the land and the function and t he enactment which confers the funct ion and requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to the authority within a period specified in the notice (which shall not be less than fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice is served ) the nature of his interest in the land and the name and address of each person whom the recipient of the notice believes is an occupier of the land and of each person whom he believes is as resects of the land such a perso n as is mentioned in the provisions of paragraphs b. and c. of this subsection

(2) A person who: a. Fail s to comply with the requin~ments of a notice served on him in pursuance of the preceding subsection or b. In furnishing any information in compliance with such a notice makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is fa lse in a material manner sha ll be guilty of an offence and liable on su mmary conviction to a fine niot exceeding leve l 5 on the standard sca le Return your response to:

Planning Enforcement,

Wokingham Borough Council,

PO Box 157,

Civic Offices, Shute End,

Wokingham

RG401WR

Or e-mail: [email protected] \

0 \ \ LJ Bluebell Farm

II I I I I Ir----_~ I I I I I I L • I I I I I ------.JI I I ' :' I {'-_ I

~ !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I N Land adj to Bluebell Farm , Commonfield Lane, Barkham

Planning 1:500

S © Crown copyright and database rights (20 15) Orclnance Survey 100019592 Land Adj to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE - PLAN 1

Planning 1:1250 © Crown copyright and database rights (2015) Ordnance Survey 100019592 N Land adjacent to Bluebell Cottage, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR

Planning 1:750 BOROUGH COUNCIL

S © Crown copyright and database rights (201 5) Ordnance Survey 100019592 VVOKINGHAM BOROUGHCOUNCIL

Address: LAND ADJACENT TO BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR

RFS Numbers: RFS/2016/082083

Expediency Report

1.0 Background Information

• This matter has not been previously considered by the Committee. • There are no process issues with regard to this site. • There has been no previous enfoircement action on the site.

A recent Certificate of Lawfulness application for the use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main dwelling, ref: 152107. This was refused on 8 January 2016 and is the subject of an appeal. It is considered that the mobile home falls within the definition of a 'caravan' and it is therefore the 1 O year rule that applies in this case and not the 4 year rule under which the certificate application was made.

Planning Contravention Notices (PCN) dated 16 June 2016 and 13 July 2016 have been served and responded to in respect of the breach(es) of planning control. The mobile home was delivered in April 2010 and has been occupied since 8 May 2010.

2.0 The Site

The site is located on land to the east of Commonfield Lane, Barkham from where it is accessed via a short track. The mobile home and its curtilage is bounded by the tree lined access track to the north, a woodland to the east, a Caravan Club site to the south and a dwelling (Bluebell Farm) and its grounds to the west.

The land subject of this report is within an areia of designated countryside bounded by timber fence on three sides. There is a single mobile home occupied by the son of Mr and Mrs Elgar, who live at the adjoining Bluebell Farm, and his wife and young child. It has a separate vehicular access, steps up to an access platform, a garden and a patio area. The mobile home is set upon a concrete base and is supported by a metal framework (with 'jacking point' stickers stuck to it) resting on metal tripods and concrete blocks. There is also an axle stub attached to the metal framework. Services are connected and a brick skirt has been constructed around the base.

• The site is within an area of designated as countryside.

• The site is also located within 500m o1f a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

• The site is located within the Thames Basin Heathland SPA 5km zone (SPA)

• The site is within a contaminated land consultation zone. Historically there have been no development 1Proposals for the land prior to the current unauthorised residential use situated within thie countryside. This involves the stationing of a mobile home with vehicular access and associated base materials and other related service infrastructure.

Fig 1 - Site location plan - _....,._

/\ ,-· ;, \.,/

\ . --r-----, lI ______};

Fig 2 - Photograph 1 of the mobile home Fig 3 - Photograph 2 of the mobile home

The Planning Unit • In the case of Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 WLR 1207 Bridge J took the opportunity to set out clear criteria for determining the correct planning unit. He identified 3 criteria for determining the correct planning unit, which are set out below:

(a) Whenever it is possible to recognise a single main purpose of the occupier's use of his land to which secondary activities are incidental or ancillary, the whole unit of occupation is considered. (b) Even though the occupier carries on a variety of activities and it is not possible to say that one is incidental or ancillary to another, the entire unit of occupation should be considered. (c) Where there are two or more physically separate and distinct uses, occupied as a single unit, but for substantially different and unrelated purposes, each area used for a different main purpose (together with its incidental and ancillary activities) ought to be considered a separate planning unit. • A further consideration in identifying the correct planning unit arose in a case, which considered a piece of land which had been divided into small plots for occupation by caravan dwellers. In this case it was held in Rawlings v Secretary of State for the Environment and Tandridge District Council 91990) 60 PCR 413, that the selection of the appropriate planning unit was essE3ntially a matter of fact and degree. • It is considered in this case that then3 are several appropriate planning units which are annotated on the plan above and discussed and defined in more detail below. 3.0 Planning and enforcement history

Application Decision Proposa I/decision Reference Date F/1997/65373 Approved Proposed single storey side and rear extension to 07.05.97 dwelling F/1997/66278 Approved Proposed erection of replacement dwelling 21 .11 .97 F/1998/68217 Approved Proposed erection of cattery 21.10.98 F/1998/67969 Approved Proposed erection of dwelling (Amendment to Approval 24.08.98 F/1997/6€>278) F/2000/2015 Approved Proposed erection of detached double garage and 04.09.00 installation of Velux windows in roof of dwelling (Retrospeictive) 152107 Refused Certificate of existing lawfulness for the use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main 08.01.16 dwelling

4.0 Alleged breach of planning control

Without planning permission:

(i) The material unauthorised change of use of land from agriculture/forestry to use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes.

5.0 Planning considerations

Constraints: Countryside Thames Basin Heaths SPA 5km zone Within 500m of SSSI (75m) Contaminated land consultation zone

National Policy NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

Adopted Core Strategy DPD 2010 CP1 Sustainable Development CP3 General development principles CP6 Managing travel demand CP7 Biodiversity CPS Thames Basin Heathlands SPA CP11 Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)

Managing Development Delivery Local CC01 Presumption in favour of sustainable Plan 201 4 developments CC02 Development Limits CC03 Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping TB06 Development of private gardens TB21 Landscape Character TB23 Biodiversity and Development SALO Thames Basin Heaths Mitigation 5 Measures

Supplementary Planning Documents LCA Landscape Character Assessment (SPD) 2004 BOG Borough Design Guide 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy CIL CIL 6 April 2015 South East Plan saved policy NRM6 Thames Basin Heath SPA

6.0 Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be:

(i) Is the structure a 'caravan'? (ii) The inappropriate use of land for residential purposes within the countryside involving the stationing of a mobile home for use as a dwelling and associated service connections on the land, the provision of hardstanding and bounded by close boarded fencing. Resulting in adverse impact on the character of the countryside. (iii) Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

7.0 Is the structure a caravan?

A 'caravan' is defined under the Caravan Site,s and Control of Development Act 1960 as:

" ... any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted but does not include:

Any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or

Any tent."

This definition has been modified by Section 13 ( 1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ("The 1968 Act"), which deals with twin-unit caravans. Section 13 ( 1) provides that:

"A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which: a) Is composed of not more than two sections sepa rately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices; and b) Is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer), shall not be treated as not being (or not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be moved on a highway when assembled."

Section 13(2) of the 1968 Act (amended October 2006) prescribes the following maximum dimensions for "twin unit caravans":

(a) length (exclusive of any drawbar) 65.616 foet (20 metres);

(b) width 23.309 feet (6.8 metres);

(c) overall height of living accommodation (me~asured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level) 10.006 feet (3.05 metres).

The owner and occupier claim that the 'chale~t' is a building and that it cannot be moved from the site in one or two pieces. Planning Contravention Notice responses are vague and do not give adequate detail of exactly how the structure was brought to and put together on the site.

It is considered that the structure, which is called a 'chalet' by the owners and occupiers, falls within the above definition of a 'caravan'. Its steel frame which has 'jacking points' and an axle stub is not fixed to the ground and rests upon concrete blocks and metal tripods set on top of a concrete base. There is a brick skirt, steps and access landing to the front door which is often the case for mobile homes. It falls within the size parameters of a 'twin unit caravan' and it is considered capable of being moved from the site in one or two pieces whether by being unbolted or crane lifted. It is therefore considered to fall within the definition of a 'caravan' which is the subject of the 10 year rule for lawfulnes:s.

8.0 Principle of development and appiropriateness of the location for the proposed use

The main National and Local Planning Policies are as follows:

National Planning Policy Framework 2012:

Para 2 of the NPPF 2012 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF therefore is a material consideration in planning decisions. Para 17 inter alia states that one of the key planning principles is recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving communities within it. It also encourages the use of brownfield land. In this case the site subject of enforcement investigation is not brownfield land and has evolved from countryside to an unauthorised residential use of land. The freeholder or their agent has not taken the opportunity to submit a planning application to the Council for a change of use of the land for residential purpose, since the commencement of the unauthorised development.

Notwithstanding the above, the residential use is considered to comprise inappropriate development in the countryside, and is thenefore unacceptable in principle in planning terms. Para 103 is concerned with assessing flood risk. In this case the site falls within flood risk zone 1 wh ich is low. So it is not anticipated tha1t flood risk is an issue in this case. Para 109 is concerned with protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils, minimising impact upon bio-diversity. It is important to prevent new and existing development from contributing towards unacceptable pollution levels of soil water noise and land instability. In such cases remediation works will be required. In this case, the unauthorised use constitutes use of land for residential purposes within the countryside, which although unlikely to result in land contamination causes harm the visual character of the countryside.

In Para 203 consideration can be made whether unacceptable development can be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. However, in this case, the current use itself is considered inappropriate in this countryside location and constitutes a proposal which in the opinion of the Council could not be mitigated through a planning condition or a planning obligation.

South East Plan saved policy NRM6 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA):

This policy states that "New residential devedopment which is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. Such measures must be agreed with Natural England. In this case the site falls within the 5km zone and therefore a contribution towards SPA mitigation would be required.

Wokingham Borough Core Strategy 2010:

Policy CP1 states that "development within the borough should enhance the overall sustainability of the area through minimising impact on the environment and proposals that enhance the quality of the environment of the borough could include those that improve the openness of the areas outside of development limits" and that planning permission will be granted for development proposals that "maintain or enhance the high quality of the environment, minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment; limit any adverse effects on water quality (including ground water); ensure the provision of adequate drainage; incorporate facilities for recycling of water and waste to help reduce per capita water consumption; avoid areas of best and most versatile agricultural land; avoid areas where pollution (including noise) may impact upon 1the amenity of present and future occupiers, avoid increasing (and where possible reduce) risks of or from all forms of flooding (including from groundwater); provide attractive, functional, accessible, safe, secure and adaptable schemes and that demonstrate how they support opportunities for reducing the need to travel, particularly by private car".

Policy CP3 states "planning permission will be granted for proposals that are of an appropriate scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character to the area together with a high quality of design without detriment to the amenities of adjoining land users including open spaces or occupiers and their quality of life, provide a functional, accessible, safe, secure and adaptable scheme; have no detrimental impact upon important ecological, heritage, landscape (including river valleys) or geological features or water courses. maintain or enhance the ability of the site to support fauna and flora including protected species; use the full potential of the site and contribute to the support for suitable complementary facilities and uses; contribute to a sense of place in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings (especially existing dwellings) including the use of appropriate landscaping; do not lead to a net loss of land', and that 'development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they have responded to the above criteria through the submission of Design and Access Statements which has clear informative plans, elevations and street scenes and where required Master plans. Development Briefs, Concept Statements and Design Codes". Policy CP6 states planning permission will be granted for schemes that "provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice; are located where there are or will be at the time of development choices in the mode of transport available and which minimise the distance people need to travel; improve the existing infrastiructure network, including road, rail and public transport, enhance facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and other users including provision for those with reduced mobility and provide appropriate vehicular parking having regard to car ownership. The scheme should enhance road safety; and do not cause highway problems or lead to traffic related environmental problems".

Policy CP7 provides that development will not be permitted where it may harm protected species unless the benefit of the developmeint outweighs the harm and/or mitigation is put in place.

Policy CP8 states "development which alone or in combination is likely to have a significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures to avoid and mitigate any potential adverse effects are delivered".

Policy CP11 states "In order to protect the separate identity of settlements and maintain the quality of the environment, proposals outside of development limits will not normally be permitted except where it contributes to diverse and sustainable rural enterprises within the Borough, or in the case of other countryside based enterprises and activities, it contributes to the enjoyment and/or promotes recreation iin the countryside and that it does not lead to excessive encroachment or expansion of development away from the original buildings and that it is contained within suitably located buildin9s which are appropriate for conversion, or in the case of replacement buildings would bring about environmental improvement, and in the case of residential extensions, does not result iin inappropriate increases in the scale, form or footprint of the original building. In the case of replacement dwellings the proposal must bring about environmental improvements and not result in inappropriate increases in the scale, form or footprint of the original building".

In the Council's view there is no environmental benefit from allowing any form of residential development in this location, being outside the development boundary and within the countryside. The removal of the unauthorise!d use and mobile home is a step to restoring the land back to its former condition and contributing to the character of the countryside which adjoins it.

Managing Development Delivery Local Plan (Adopted Feb 2014):

Policy CC01 Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development, which states that "Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Development Plan for Wokingham Borough Council should be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant polices are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Any adverse impacts of planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or Specific polices in that framework indicate that development should be restricted".

Policy CC02 of the MOD Local Plan 2014 states "planning permission for proposals at the edge of settlements will only be granted where the·y can demonstrate that the development including boundary treatments is within development limits and respects the transition between the built up area and the open countryside by taking account of the character of the adjacent countryside and landscape'. This is clearly not the case in this instance as the area of land is outside of the development limits". Policy TB21 of the MOD Local Plan 2014 states "planning permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal addresses the specific requirements of the Council's Landscape Character Assessment. including the landscape quality; landscape strategy; landscape sensitivity and key issues. Proposals shall retain or enhance the condition. character and features that contribute to the landscape".

Policy TB23 of the MOD Local Plan 20114 states "planning perm1ss1on for development proposals will only be granted where they comply with Policy CP7 - Biodiversity of the Core Strategy and also demonstrate how they provide opportunities through design, layout and landscaping to incorporate new biodiversity features or enhance existing, provide appropriate buffer zones between development proposals and designated sites as well as habitats and species of principle importance for nature conservation and ensure that all existing and new developments are ecologically permeable through the protection of existing and the provision of new continuous wildlife corridors, which shall be integrated and linked to the wider green infrastructure network".

9.0 Acceptability of current use/development

The aerial photos show that the site was previously undeveloped land. The unauthorised residential use with its lawn. hardstanding and residential paraphernalia has degraded its landscape character and constitutes a visual intrusion within the countryside.

However. it is necessary to determine before instigating enforcement action whether an exception can be made to countryside and settlement limits policy to grant permission for a residential use on this site contrary inter alia to Para 17 of NPPF 2012 and the Council's Local Plan policies.

In this case the Council's view is that permission would not be granted for the stationing of a mobile home, as there is an in principle objection to the use of the site located within the countryside for residential purposes. The Council considers it important that the land is restored to its former condition as open countryside to contribute to the scattered pattern of rural development. and the overall character of th1e countryside. This in the Council's view overrides the benefits of residential development. The retention of mobile home on this site clearly conflicts with this clear policy objective whether the use is of a temporary nature or permanent.

The use of the land for the siting of a mobile home in the Council's view causes demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and is an intrusive form of development outside settlement limits. It would therefore fail Policy CP11, which is an established and robust policy that does not support the residential use on the site. In terms of sustainable development the current use fails in a number of areas, its countryside location, and its relative inaccessibility from public transport links and lack of other essential facilities. (Policy CP6).

It would on the above basis fail policies CP1 and CP3 as it would also not constitute a sustainable form of development. It has adverse impact upon the local environment reducing openness. In summary it is a planning policy requirement to create a safe and well-designed environment for occupiers, and which minimises ecological impact. In the Council's view no evidence has been produced to support the sustainability of the current unauthorised residential use.

10.0 Assessment - Principle of Development The site is not within a site allocated for housing in the adopted development plan , and is situated within the countryside. There are no overriding reasons in terms of housing supply or need for the land to be used for residential IPUrposes. The use is in principle contrary to the NPPF 2012, the Wokingham Borough LDF Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, the Wokingham Borough De:velopment Plan MDDDPD (Local Plan) 2014 and the Borough Design Guide SPD 2012.

The change of use constitutes an inappropriate, unacceptable encroachment of residential use within the countryside. Therefore in the Council's view it has a detrimental effect upon the appearance and open character of the countryside. It results in an urbanising effect on the countryside, which is harmful to the rural location in which the site is located.

Notwithstanding the presumption in favour of sustainable development in line with national and local planning policy, protection of the countryside continues as a key policy objective to maintain and where possible enhance the visual appearance of the countryside. Such a development is therefore considered out of keeping with the rural character having a detrimental impact upon the appearance and open character of the countryside. It is not considered that new planting/landscaping would mitigate the harm resulting from the continuation of the use and retention of unauthorised mobile home in this case.

The site lies within the countryside as designated in the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy where development is strictly controlled under national, regional and local policies. The National Planning Policy Framework has an underlying presumption in favour of sustainable development which is carried through to the local Development Plan. The Managing Development Delivery Local Plan Policy cco·1states that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Development Plan for Wokingham Borough will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate othent11ise.

It is clear that the development would not bring about environmental improvement as it would introduce a new residential use into a countryside area. It is one of the 12 core planning principles of the NPPF (2010) (S.17) that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas... recognisins:i the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside ... '. These uses in open countryside do not respect the prevailing character. By virtue of their visual obtrusiveness they impact on the countryside character of the area and are contrary to Policy CP11 as they do not maintain the quality of the environment or result in environmental improvement.

Pol icy CC02 defines the settlement development limits. The site is located within the countryside outside any defined settlement area and therefore the principle of development would be unacceptable.

Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy states that development must be appropriate in terms of its scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, heioht, materials and character to the area in which it is located and must be of high quality desi9n without detriment to the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. It is not considered that the unauthorised development is appropriate in this area.

Policy CP6 requires provision for sustainable forms of transport which are not available in this location as the only reasonable access is by motor vehicle. The introduction of the new development and uses adds to the impact of the use of motor vehicles to access the site as public transport is either not, or is not easily available, to the site.

Policy CP11 of the adopted Core Strategy states that in order to protect the separate identity of settlements and maintain the quality of the environment, development in the rural areas outside development limits will not normally be permitted. However it does support the principle of proposals outside development limits, including countryside, subject to seven criteria. These are that it contributes to diverse and sustainable rural enterprise within the borough, or in the case of other countryside based enterprises and activities, it contributes and/or promotes recreation in, enjoyment of, the countryside and does not lead to excessive encroachment or expansion away from original buildings. Development within the countryside should be contained within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion, or in the case of replacement buildings would bring about environmental improvement. This is subject to 2 caveats. Firstly, the development should not lead to encroachment or expansion of development away from the original buildings; and secondly, that it would be contained in buildings suitable for conversion, or in the case of replacement buildings would bring about environmental improvement. The unauthorised use does not accord with these exceptions. It would be reasonable for this development and the use to be located elsewhere in a more sustainable location.

It is ultimately considered that the use in terms of its location and its impact represents unacceptable and unsustainable development within the countryside. Furthermore, it does not represent a sustainable use of the land within the countryside and would have a harmful urbanising impact on its openness which do«3s not accord with the NPPF, MOD policies CC01 , CC02, CC03, TB06, TB21 , TB23 and SALO!:i and CS policies CP1 , CP3, CP6, CP7, CP8, CP9 and CP11 .

11.0 Five Year Housing Land Supply

The October 2015 SHLAA demonstrates thE3 Council's five year housing land supply position against the full Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for the Borough.

The Council published the Final Berkshire ( including South Bucks) Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in February 2016. The SHMA was commissioned by the six Berkshire Authorities and the Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The full Objectively Assessed Need for Wokingham Borough is 856 dwellings per annum 1 April 2013 - 31 March 2036.

The Councils position on housing land supply is that having regard to the OAN derived from the published SHMA, the Council can demonstrate a 6 year supply of housing land at 1 October 2015.

The authority can also demonstrate a 5.6 year supply of housing land at 1 October 2015 when having regard to the phased housing requirements in its adopted Core Strategy.

The OAN will need to be carefully considered along with supply capacity, unmet need from other areas and the authorities' policy objectives. Once these elements are complete, the Council will ultimately produce a new housin~1 provision target in a new Local Plan that will then be subject to an examination in public by an Inspector.

The Council has a robust and deliverable 5 year housing land supply. The site is not identified as a housing site in the adopted development plan and the Council can clearly demonstrate a robust and deliverable housing supply for thH Borough until 2026 based upon sound evidence, and which complies with the NPPF.

12.0 Impact of the developments on the rural character of the area The area remains predominantly rural in nature and the land around is still agricultural in nature. This area of Commonfield Lane has a distinct rural character apart from some isolated commercial uses and scattered residential properties. The overriding character is dominated by open rural countryside and sparse residential development of a mature nature. Glimpses of the development can be seen from Commonfield Lane which becomes more pronounced when moving along the access track towards the site entrance. The current unauthorised development on site has ostensibly changed this rural character by expanding residential use out into the surrounding countryside.

The site is situated in the Arborfield Cross and Barkham Settled and Farmed Clay J2, a landscape of moderate quality and sensitivity .. The area is described in the Wokingham District Landscape Character Assessment (2004) SPD as a large, irregularly shaped area just to the south east of the centre of the district. Its London Clay geology is reflected in the flat to gently undulating landform. The principal land uses are settlement and agriculture. Large fields with hedgerows predominate both for arable and for sheep pasture with smaller, fenced paddocks featuring near to settlements. Hedgerow trees are important in retaining the rural, wooded feel of the landscape, in combination with small woodlands and shelterbelts and the presence of views towards woods on surrounding higher ground.

The overall landscape strategy within this guidance is for enhancement. The overall objective is to enhance the current character by retaining the current positive characteristics and seeking to improve the condition of characteristics which are not in their ideal state, and sensitively integrating appropriate new characteristics.

The unauthorised development does not nespect the landscape nor does it enhance the condition, character and features that contribute to it. As such the development is considered to be contrary to MOD Policy TB21 .

13.0 Impact on neighbours

The use does not have a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining land users. It is noted, however, that the cumulative development of the site and its change of use would result in an intensified use of the site causing additional v,ehicle journeys.

14.0 Impact on Biodiversity and Thames Basin Heaths SPA

The site is adjacent to a SSSI therefore policiies TB23 and CP? need to be considered. Without any mitigation measures put in place through a legal agreement the unauthorised use by way of its existence as a new dwelling has an impact on the SPA which is contrary to MOD policy SALOS and policy NRM6 of the South East Plan.

15.0 Highway issues

The unauthorised use would not impact upon safe highway access but does result in the need for additional parking. There is an increase in vehicle movements associated with use, however it is unlikely that this would result in a material impact on the local highway network and there is adequate parking and turning space on site.

16.0 Summary of negotiations with transgressors

16 June 2016 - First letter and Planning Contravention Notice to site owners, William and Susan Elgar. 4 July 2016 - First PCN response.

11 July 2016 - Email correspondence with the planning agent discussing whether the mobile home/chalet falls within the definition of a caravan.

13 July 2016 - Second letter and PCN to William and Susan Elgar.

29 July 2016 - Second PCN response.

29 July 2016 - Letter requesting further clarification response to second PCN.

1 August 2016 - Response from William Elgar to letter dated 29 July 2016.

1 August 2016 - Email to William Elgar requesting further clarification.

1 August 2016 - Response from William Elgar's planning agent.

17 .0 Human Rights and Equalities

The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000 which means that it is now, subject to certain circumstances, directly unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. In particular Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of property) apply to planning decisions. These rights have to be balanced against the public interest in regularising the breach of planning control the subject of this report.

When a planning decision is made there is further provision that the Authority must take into account the public interest. In the vast majority of cases existing planning law has for many years demanded a balancing exercise between private rights and public interest and therefore the Local Planning Authority's decision making will continue to take into account this balance.

The Human Rights Act is not a material consideration in this case because no exceptional circumstances have been raised which require a more careful and sensitive consideration of Human Rights issues.

The above human rights could be outweighed when considering the general interest and the rights and freedoms of others. All planning decisions are based on an assessment of the development against the current development plan policies. It is considered that because of the impact on the character of the area, and for the reasons outlined above, it is in the public interest to pursue this matter further.

In making its decision the Council must also have regard to its public sector equality duty (PSED) under s.149 of the Equalities Act 2010. The duty is to have due regard to the need (in discharging its functions) to:

a. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisa tion and other conduct prohibited by the Act b. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. This may include removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; taking steps to meet the special needs of those with a protected characteristic; encouraging participation in public life (or other areas where they are underrepresented) of people with a protected characteristic( s ). c. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not including tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The PSED must be considered as a relevant factor when considering its decision but does not impose a duty to achieve the outcomes in s.149. The level of consideration required (i.e. due regard) will vary with the decision including such factors as: a. The importance of the decision and the severity of the impact on the Council's ability to meet its PSED b. The likelihood of discrimina1tory effect or that it could eliminate existing discrimination. The Council should give greater consideration to decisions that have a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected characteristic and this impact may be unintentional. In appropriate cases, this may involve an understanding of the practical impact on individuals so affected by the decision. Regard should be had to the effect of mitigation taken to reduce any adverse impact. Further, the PSED is only one factor that needs to be considered when making a decision and may be balanced against other relevant factors. The Council is also entitled to take into account other rel1evant factors in respect of the decision, including financial resources and policy conside:rations. In appropriate cases, such countervailing factors may justify decisions which have an adverse impact on protected groups.

In reaching the conclusion and recommendation below human rights and equalities issues have been considered and when balancing these against the wider public interest it is considered that taking action is proportionate.

18.0 Conclusion

The introduction of the unauthorised use, development and associated paraphernalia of a scale has a cumulative and detrimental impact on this countryside location and the landscape character. The unauthorised use in the count1ryside is unacceptable in terms of their sustainable and visual impacts.

Paragraph 207 of the NPPF states that 'E~nforcement action should be taken where it is appropriate to do so'. In this case it has been considered expedient to do so for the reasons outlined in this report in order to prevent the escalation of this and other such developments in the countryside in general. The unauthorised development gives rise to serious harm to the rural character of the area and to the aim of national and local policy to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty.

The site is located within the countryside. The use and associated items, hardstanding and vehicles are incongruous features within the countryside setting and are harmful to the undeveloped character and amenity of the area. They represent unsustainable and inappropriate development in the countrysidE~. As such they conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework are contrary to Wokingham Borough Core Strategy DPD 2010 policies CP1, CP3, CP6, CP7, CP8, CP9 and CP11; Wokingham Borough Managing Development Delivery Local Plan 2014 policies CC01, CC02, CC0:3, TB06, TB21 , TB23 and SAL05; policy NRM6 of the South East Plan and the Borough Design Guide. It is considered capable of being moved from the site in one or two pieces and therefore falls within the definition of a 'caravan'.

19.0 Recommendation The development has a detrimental 1mpact on the character and visual amenity of the countryside location. The Council considers that it is expedient that an enforcement notice be served for the following reasons:

1. It appears to the Council that the chang,e of use breach of planning control has occurred within the last 10 years.

3. The site is not identified as housing site in the adopted development plan and the Council can clearly demonstrate a robust and deliverable housing supply for the Borough until 2026 based upon sound evidence, and which complies with the NPPF 2012. Therefore there is no overriding reason for a presumption in favour of this existing use, which is considered contrary to NPPF policy, and policies CP1, CP3, and CP11 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy CC01 of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) 2014.

4. In the absence of assessment and mitigation measures in respect of The Thames basins Heath SPA, the existing use/development is considered to cause harm to the character of the site and surrounding area contrary to Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy 2010, SAL05 of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) 2014 and South East Plan policy NRM6.

Requirements of the notice:

(i) Cease the use of the Land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes. (ii) Remove the unauthorised mobile home from the Land , including brick skirt, access steps and platform, patio and concrete base. (iii) Remove all service connections and pipes form the Land which facilitate the unauthorised use. (iv) Remove the hard standing shown hatched on the plan, spread the area with topsoil to a depth of 20 cm and sow with grass see!d. (v) Remove the boundary fences from the Land. (vi) Remove from the land all materials resulting from compliance with steps (ii) to (v) above.

Time for compliance:

9 months from when the notice takes effect.

Recommendations Agreed:

Signed./J1.CM:t.~.?~ .. lli.~.j _...... (Developm,ent Management - Service Manager)

Dated: 16 August 2016

Report Author: Jason Varley Appendix Three - Land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham

Tool to assist with assessing harm

Score 1 Is the breach: Worsening? ( 1) 0 Stable? (0) 2 Highway safety issue Yes? (2) 0 No? (0) 3 Other safety issue Yes? (2) 0 ( not covered by other No? (0) legislation) 4 Is it causing serious or Yes? (1) 1 irreversible harm to the No? (0) environment or surrounding area 5 Complainant Immediate neighbour? (2) 1 Parish Council/Other? (1) Anonymous/malicious? (0) 6 Age of breach Within 6 months of immunity? (2) 0 Less than 3 months old? (1) More than 3 months old? (0) 7 Major planning policy Yes? (1) 1 breach No? (0) 8 Flood risk Zone 3 (2) 0 Zones 1-2 (1) NFR (0) 9 Is there harm Widespread? (2) 1 Local? (1) None?(O) 10 Breach of planning condition Yes? (1) 0 or Article 4 direction No? (0) 11 Conservation Area or Yes? (1) 0 adjacent to No? (0) 12 Listed Building or affecting Yes?(1) 0 character or setting of No? (0) 13 Particularly sensitive site eg Yes? (1) 1 SSSI, AONB, Scheduled No? (0) Ancient Monument, Listed Garden, Archaeological Importance 14 Undesirable precedent Yes? (1) 1 (please provide details) No? (0) Total 6

NB For formal enforcement action to be taken it is likely that the harm score will need to be 6 or more. This is only one of the tools/tests that the Council will use to assess whether formal action should be taken .. WOl(INGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

IMPORTANT· THIS COMMUNIICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE Material Change of Use

ISSUED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (the Council)

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE which is issued by the Council because it appears to them that there has been a breach of planning control, under section 171 A(1 )(a) of the above Act, at the Land described below. They consider that it is expedient to issue this notice, having regard to the provisions of the developmHnt plan and to other material planning considerations. The Explanatory Note at the end of this notice and the enclosures to which it refers contain important additional information.

2. THE LAND AFFECTED

Land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR ('the Land') shown edged by a thick red line on Plan 1.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED

Without planning permission the material change of use of land from agriculture/forestry to use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes with associiated garden.

4. REASONS FOR ISSUING THIS NOTICE

1. It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last 10 years.

2. The unauthorised use/development constitutes an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development within the countryside, and outside of the settlement limit of the village of Barkham, thereby adversely affecting its character. Consequently, there is an in principle objection to the unauthorised use, which does not accord withi the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CP1 , CP3, CP6, CP7, CP8 and CP11 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policies CC01, CC02, CC03, TB06, TB21, TB23 and SALOS of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) 2014. 3. The site is not identified as housing site in the adopted development plan and the Council can clearly demonstrate a robust and deliverable housing supply for the Borough until 2026 based upon sound evidence, and which complies with the NPPF 2012. Therefore 1there is no overriding reason for a presumption in favour of this existing use, which is considered contrary to NPPF policy, and policies CP1, CP3, and CP11 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy CC01 of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) 2014.

5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO

(i) Cease the use of the Land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes. (ii) Remove the unauthorised mobile home from the Land, including brick skirt, access steps and platform, patio and concrete base. (iii) Remove all service connections and pipes form the Land which facilitate the unauthorised use. (iv) Remove the hard standing shown hatched on the plan, spread the area with topsoil to a depth of 20 cm and sow with grass seed. (v) Remove the boundary fences [shown between the points A, Band C] from the Land. (vi) Remove all residential paraphernalia from the Land including children's play equipment and furniture. (vii) Remove from the land all materials resulting from compliance with steps (ii) to (v) above.

6. TIME FOR COMPLIANCE

Nine months from the date this notice takes effect.

7. WHEN TH IS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT

This notice takes effect on ?? September 2016 unless an appeal is made against it beforehand. Dated:

Signed: ...... Mrs Clare Lawrence Head of Development Management Development & RegenEffation Service Wokingham Borough Council PO Box 157 Civic Offices Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR EXPLANATORY NOTE

YOUR RIGHT OF APPEAL There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State (at The Planning Inspectorate) against the notice. You can appeal against this Notice, but any appeal must be received, or posted in time to be received by the Secretary of State before the date specified in paragraph 7 of the Notice. !Please see the sheet from The Planning Inspectorate at the end of this document headed 'THIS IS IMPORTANT' which tells you how to make an appeal.

The Planning Inspectorate produce a booklet entitled "Making your Appeal" which sets out your rights and the procedure 1to be followed. You can obtain this booklet either from Planning Inspectorate or from their Customer Support Unit by phoning 0117 3726372. The grounds on which an appeal may be made are set out in section 17 4 of the Town & Country Planning Ac:t 1990. You will find an explanation of the grounds in the "Making your Appeal" booklet.

Under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) you may appeal on one or more of the following grounds (not all of these grounds may be relevant to you)

(a) that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to be granted or, as the case may be, the condition or limitation concerned ought to be discharged;

(b) that those matters have not occurre:d;

(d) that, at the date when the notice was issued , no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters;

(e) that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 172;

(f) that the steps required by the notice: to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caus1ed by any such breach;

(g) that any period specified in the notice in accordance with section 173(9) falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.

If you decide to appeal, when you submit it, you should state in writing the ground(s) on which you are appealing against th13 enforcement notice and you should state briefly the facts on which you intend to rely in support of each of those grounds. If you do not do this when you make your appeal the Secretary of State will send you a notice requiring you to do so within 14 days. FEE PAYABLE FOR THE DEEMED APPLICATION

If you appeal under Ground (a) of Sec1tion 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 this is the equivalent of applying for planning permission for the development alleged in the notice and you will have to pay a fee of 2 x £385.00 = £770.00. You should pay this fee to the Local Planning Authority.

Joint appellants need only pay one feei .

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DO NOT APPEAL

If you do not appeal against the Enforcement Notice, the Notice will take effect on the date specified in paragraph 7 indic.ated above and you must then ensure that the required steps for complying with it, and for which you may be held responsible are taken within the period/s specified in paragraph 6 of the Notice. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice that has talken effect is a criminal offence and can result in legal proceedings and or remedial action by the Council.

PERSONS SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

In accordance with the legislation, this Enforcement Notice has been served on the following individuals/organisations:

Name & Address of Persons Served Method

William Elgar, Bluebell Farm, By Hand Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Susan Elgar, Bluebell Farm, By Hand Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Lee Elgar, Mobile Home, Land By Hand adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Louise Elgar, Mobile Home, Land By Hand adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Owner/Occupier of the Mobile Home, By Hand Land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR The legislative provisions for enforcement notices and appeals

The powers of local planning authoritiHs to issue enforcement notices, expressions used in the enforcement of planning control and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against enforcement notices are in sections 171 A, 171 B and 172 to 177 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. These provisions are stated in full below.

Section 171A. (1) For the purposes of this Act - a. carrying out development without thB required planning permission; or b. failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted, constituties a breach of planning control. (2) For the purposes of this Act - a. the issue of an enforcement notice (defined in section 172); or b. the service of a breach of condition notice (defined in section 187A), constitutes taking enforcement action. (3) In this Part "planning permission" includes permission under Part 111 of the 1947 Act, of the 1962 Act or o1f the 1971 Act.

Section 1718. ( 1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of buildini;J, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed. (2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach. (3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach. (4) The preceding subsections do not prevent - a. the service of a breach of conditioin notice in respect of any breach of planning control if an enforcement notice in respect of the breach is in effect; or b. taking further enforcement action in respect of any breach of planning control if, during the period of four years ending with that action being taken, the local planning authority has taken or purported to takc3 enforcement action in respect of that breach.

Section 172. (1) The local planning authority may issue a notice (in this Act referred to as an "enforcement notice") where it appears to them - a. that there has been a breach of planning control, and b. that it is expedient to issue the notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan to any other materials considerations. (2) A copy of an enforcement notice shall be served - a. on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates: and b. on any other person having an inteirest in the land , being an interest which, in the opinion of the authority, is materially ai'fected by the notice. (3) The service of the notice shall take place - a. not more than twenty-eight days after its date of issue; and b. not less than twenty-eight days before the date specified in it as the date on which it is to take effect.

Section 173. (1) An enforcement notice shall state - a. the matters which appear to the local planning authority to constitute the breach of planning control; and b. the paragraph of section 171A(1) within which, in the opinion of the authority, the breach falls. (2) A notice complies with subsection (1 )(a) if it enables any person on whom a copy of it is served to know what those matt,ers are. (3) An enforcement notice shall specify the steps which the authority require to be taken, or the activities which the authority require to cease, in order to achieve, wholly or partly, any of the following pu,rposes. (4) Those purposes are - a. remedying the breach by makinig any development comply with the terms (including conditions and limitations) of any planning permission which has been granted in respect of the land, by discontinuing any use of the land or by restoring the land to its conditions before the breach took place; or b. remedying any injury or amenity which has been caused by the breach. (5) An enforcement notice may, for example, require - a. the alteration or removal of any buildings or works; b. the carrying out of any building or other operations; c. any activity on the land not to be c.arried on except to the extent specified in the notice: or d. the contour of a deposit of refuse or waste materials on land to be modified by altering the gradient or gradients of its sides. (6) Where an enforcement notice is issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building, the notice may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to a subsection (7), is as similar as possiblH to the demolished building. (7) A replacement building - a. must comply with any requirement imposed by any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings; b. may differ from the demolished buiilding in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control; c. must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (1) and (2)). (8) An enforcement notice shall speciify the date on which it is to take effect and, subject to sections 175(4) and 289(4A), shall take effect on that date. (9) An enforcement notice shall specify the period at the end of which any steps are required to have been taken or any activities are required to have ceased and may specify different periods for different steps or activities; and , where different periods apply to different steps or activities, references in this Part to the period for compliance with an enforcement notice, in relation to any step or activity, are to the period at the end of which the step is required to have been taken or the activity is required to have ceased. (10) An enforcement notice shall specify such additional matters as may be prescribed, and regulations may requina every copy of an enforcement notice served under section 172 to be accompanied by an explanatory note giving prescribed information as to the right of appeal under section 174. (11)Where- a. an enforcement notice in respect of any breach of planning control could have required any buildings or works to be r,emoved or any activity to cease, but does not do so; and b. all the requirements of the notice have been complied with, then, so far as the notice did not so require, planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities. (12) Where - a. an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and b. all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with, planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of that construction.

Section 173A. ( 1) The local planning authority may - a. withdraw an enforcement notice issued by them; or b. waive or relax any requirement of such a notice and, in particular, may extend any period specified in accordance with section 173(9). (2) The powers conferred by subsectiion (1) may be exercised whether or not the notice has taken effect. (3) The local planning authority shall, immediately after exercising the powers conferred by subsection ( 1 ), give notiice of the exercise to every person who has been served with a copy of the enforcement notice or would, if the notice were re issued, be served with a copy of it. (4) The withdrawal of an enforcement notice does not affect the powers of the local planning authority to issue a further enforcement notice.

Section 174. (1) A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates or a relevant occupier may appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, whether or not a copy of it has been served on him. (2) An appeal may be brought on any of the following grounds - a. that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to be granted or, as the case may be, the condition or limitation concerned ought to be discharged; b. that those matters have not occurred; c. that those matters (if they occurred) do not constitute a breach of planning control; d. that, at the date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters; e. that copies of the enforcement notic,e were not served as required by section 172; f. that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach; g. that any period specified in the notice in accordance with section 173(9) falls short of what should reasonably be allowed. (3) An appeal under this section shall be made either - a. by giving written notice of the appeal to the Secretary of State before the date specified in the enforcement notice as the date on which it is to take effect; or b. by sending such notice to him in a properly addressed and pre-paid letter posted to him at such time that, in the ordina1ry course of post, it would be delivered to him before that date. (4) A person who gives notice under subsection (3) shall submit to the Secretary of State, either when giving the notice or within the prescribed time, a statement in writing - a. specifying the grounds on which hEi is appealing against the enforcement notice; and b. giving such further information as may be prescribed. (5) If, where more than one ground is specified in that statement, the appellant does not give information required under subsection (4)(b) in relation to each of those grounds within the prescribed time, the Secretary of State may determine the appeal without considering any ground as to which the appellant has failed to give such information within that time. (6) In this section "relevant occupier" means a person who - a. on the date on which the enforcement notice is issued occupies the land to which the notice relates by virtue of a licence; and b. continues so to occupy the land whein the appeal is brought.

Section 175. (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure which is to be followed on appeals under section 174 and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may - a. require the local planning authority to submit, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement indicating the submissions which they propose to put forward on the appeal; b. specify the matters to be included in such a statement; c. require the authority or the appellant to give such notice of such an appeal as may be prescribed; d. require the authority to send to the Secretary of State, within such period from the date of the bringing of the appeal as may be prescribed, a copy of the enforcement notice and a list of the persons served with copies of it. (2) The notice to be prescribed under subsection (1 )(c) shall be such notice as in the opinion of the Secretary of State is likely to bring the appeal to the attention of persons in the locality in which the laind to which the enforcement notice relates is situated. (3) Subject to section 176(4), the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, 9ive each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose. (4) Where an appeal is brought under section 174 the enforcement notice shall subject to any order under section 289(4A) be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal. (5) Where any person has appeal,ed to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice, no person shall b1e entitled, in any other proceedings instituted after the making of the appeal, to claim that the notice was not duly served on the person who appealed. (6) Schedule 6 applies to appeals under section 174, including appeals under that section as applied by regulations under any other provisions of this Act. (7) Subsection (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which authorises a Minster holding an inquiry under that section to make orders with respect to the costs of the parties) shall apply in relation to any proceedings before the Secretary of State on an appeal under section 174 as if those proceedings were an inquiry held by the Secretary of State under section 250.

Section 176. ( 1) On an appeal under section 17 4 thH Secretary of State may - a. correct any defect, error or misdescription in the enforcement notice; or b. vary the terms of the enforcement notice, if he is satisfied that the correction or variation will not cause injustice to the appellant or the local planning authority. (2) Where the Secretary of State determines to allow the appeal, he may quash the notice. (2A) The Secretary of State shall give any directions necessary to give effect to his determination on the appeal. (3) The Secretary of State - a. may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with section 174( 4) within the prescribed time; and b. may allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice if the local planning authority fail to comply with any requirement of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a),(b), or (d) of section 175(1) within the prescribed period. (4) If the Secretary of State proposes to dismiss an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) or to allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice under paragraph (b) of that subsection, he need not comply with section 175(3). (5) Where it would otherwise be a ground for determining an appeal under section 174 in favour of the appellant that a pE3rson required to be served with a copy of the enforcement notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard that fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.

Section 177. ( 1) On the determination of an appeal under section 174, the Secretary of State may - a. grant planning permission in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a beach of planning control, whether in relation to the whole or any part of those matters or in relation to the whole or any part of the land to which the notice relates; b. discharge any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted; c. determine whether, on the date on which the appeal was made, any existing use of the land was lawful, any operations which had been carried out in, on, over or under the land were lawful or any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted was lawful and, if so, issue a certificate under section 191 . (1A) The provisions of sections 191 to 194 mentioned in subsection (18) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (1 )(c) as they apply for the purposes of section 191 , but as if - a. any reference to an application for a certificate were a reference to the appeal and any reference to the date of such an application were a reference to the date on which the appeal is made; and b. references to the local planning a1uthority were references to the Secretary of State. (1 B) Those provisions are: sections 191 (5) to (7), 193(4) (so far as it related to the form of the certificate), (6) and (7) and 194. (2) In considering whether to grant planning permission under subsection (1 ), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the subject matter of the enforcement notice, and to any other material considerations. (3) The planning permission that may be granted under subsection (1) is any planning permission that might be granted on an application under Part Ill. (4) Where under subsection (1) the Secretary of State discharges a condition or limitation, he may substitute another condition or limitation for it, whether more or less onerous. (5) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought under section 174, the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permission in respect of the matters stated in the ,enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control.

(SA) Where - a. the statement under subsection ( 4) of section 17 4 specifies the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; b. any fee is payable under regulations made by virtue of section 303 in respect of the application deemed to be made by virtue of the appeal; and c. the Secretary of State gives notice in writing to the appellant specifying the period within which the fee must be paid , then, if that fee is not paid within that period, the appeal, so far as brought on that ground, and the application shall lapse at the end of that period. (6) Any planning permission granted under subsection (1) on an appeal shall be treated as granted on the application deemed to have been made by the appellant. (7) In relation to a grant of planning permission or a determination under subsection (1) the Secretary of State's decision shall be final. (8) For the purposes of section 69 the Secretary of State's decision shall be treated as having been given by him in dealing with an application for planning permission made to the local planning authority. I• The Planning Inspectorate

CST Room 3/ 13 Direct Line 0303-444 5000 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Fa x No 0117-372 8782 Temple Quay Bristol BS 1 6PN

THIS IS IMP<)RTANT

If you want to appeal against this enforcement notice you can do it :-

• on-line at the Appeals Casework Portal (https://acp. planninginspecitorate.gov .uk/); or

• by getting enforcement app1ea l forms by phoning us on 0303 444 5000 or by emailing us at enquiries@pins. gsi .gov. uk

You MUST make sure that we receive your appeal before the effective date on the enforcement notice.

In exceptional circumstances you, may give notice of appeal by fax or letter. You should include:- • the name of the local planning authority; • the site address; • your address; and • the effective date of the enforcement notice.

We MUST receive this before the effective date on the enforcement notice. This should iimmediately be followed by your completed appeal forms. / . / /

54.3m__.---- /"'.. :~- --~~-:::... . . -- -- _ .. . ~ ----· . .• . . ' · ·' .-· . . . __,,.------.· . _,, / -----...... ,,."' -.... / '~-

-- ...--· --...... _ -...... ;----...... ' \ \ / Pine \ \ \ / Lodge \ , /

\ . .\ ) \\} ,\-· \ / Bluebell! Farm / -./ ... / \ \y_,..,,-- ~-

i3 I I I I ...... I / .· I I \ \ ·, / \ ./ I I I I /' I I I / / ''(

' / / _ _.~,----1

N Land adjacent to Bluebell Cottage, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR

w E WOKINGHAM Planning 1:750 BOROUGH COUNCIL

S c:> Crown copyright and database rights (2015) Ordinance Survey 100019592 .,/' / /

. I I I ' I I .. .. ._, I ,, I \

' ' \ \ \ ' \ 1/ \ ·, '\ ', I / /' ' / I I , / I I / 'V / / ' ' , I I ', ' I : N Land adjacent to Bluebell Cottage, Commonfield Lane, Barkham HG40 4PR w E WOKINGHAM Planning 1:750 BOROUGH COUNCIL

S ©Crown copyright and database rights (2015) Ordnance Survey 100019592 Bluebell Farm

Planning 1:500

Sent by email only

Mrs Emily Temple Pegasus Group Development Management Abbey House P.O. Box 157 Grenville Place Shute End, Wokingham Bracknell Berkshire RG40 1WR Berkshire Tel: (0118) 974 6000 RG12 1BP Fax: (0118) 97 4 6484 Minicom No: (0118) 977 8909 DX: 33506 - Wokingham

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Reference: RFS/2016/082803 Site: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Without planning permission, the change of use of "the Land" for the Allegation: siting of two caravans/mobile homes for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding

Dear Mrs Temple;

I write in respect of the above matter about which we have been in recent correspondence. It has now come to my attention that the land on which the chaleUmobile home is sited plus part of the Caravan Site is not in your client's ownership, it is in fact owned by the Council. The Council will be contacting them under separate cover to recover their land .

In the meantime your client has an appeal running whereby they have made a false claim, on the application form, that thi:iy are the owner of the land. For information the following warning is contained on the application form:

"Warning: The amended section 194 of the 1990 Act provides that it is an offence to furnish false or misleading information or to withhold material information with intent to deceive. Section 193(7) enables the authority to revoke, at any time, a certificate they may have issued as a result of such false or misleading information."

In light of this information I would welcome, at your earliest convenience, an indication of whether your client is intending to proc,eed with the current appeal.

Yours sincerely .:rv~ Jason Varley Plannning Enforcement Officer Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement) IMPORTANT

THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

File Reference RFS/2016/082803

Sl6 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended)

To: Owners and Occupiers of land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR shown edged by a thick red line on the attached plan ("the Land")

REQUISITIONS FOR INFORMATION

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Provisions of Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended) Wokingham Borough Council ("the Council") hereby REQUIRES YOU WITHIN 14 DAYS after the date on which this Notice is served to reply in writing to the Council with the information requested below:

1. Your name and address rY\1'2.CA...JILL1..~ EL.0-~e 1 1:S~effL·~·y-\

Co~-Fl<=c..L~ L~E" J5A12...~l:-\-P\(Y) 1 e.G-40 l.f-A2.

2. Are you the Owner of the Land - Yes/No

3. Names and ages of any children (under 18 years) living in the c-arava-Af-me-bHehome c.-+tALe.-,

v-::>I LL..\I"""\~ e_L.Gt='\f<.. 1 Pr0e .3

4. Names and ages of children living at the Land who are attending a local school together with the name of that school (_.>..'.:)\LL.I.~ E..L&-AC2 I Ace ~ } me~ ~e.'S:£....e_y

5. Names and ages of any persons with a registered disability living in the ta-r:avaR/-moo+le oo-mee-~<-E.,

6. Names and ages of any persons living at the Land with special needs that make them a vulnerable member of the community

7. Are any of the occupiers of the caravan/mobile home a Gypsy or Traveller - Yes/No U...::,\Tt\\W ~ ve.P\1'--'.l \Tl~ oP ~ex I(!) C)lp PLAlvl\J l{\..')el' Rx\C'( ~ 112..P\\.E~ S(\cS (2.o\~)/ ~. 8. Anything else you would like the Council to be aware of? p(.e...-A-ee Re.~e.~ 'lb A~tc..AT1~ \ ~ '2-1 Dr ,=v,.:)~ F','2:>'3C:lc..-l ~E'b A-PPe:AL... t.2...e:.PE.~ 3\::> ~~~ This information is required by Wokingham Borough Council in pursuance of its functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: namely the preparation of enforcement action under Sl 71 and S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended

DATED: 16 August 2016 SIGNED: (r v~ (Council's Authorised Officer) Wokingham Borough Council,

PO Box 157, Civic Offices, Shute End,

Wokingham RG401WR

NOTE

Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides as follows:

(1) Where with a view to performing a function conferred on a local authority by any enactment the authority considers that it ought to have information connected with any land the authority may serve on one or more of the following persons, namely: a. The occupier of the land; and b. Any person who has an interest in the land either as freeholder, mortgagee or lessee or who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land; and c. Any person who in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it

A notice specifying the land and the function and the enactment which confers the function and requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to the authority within a period specified in the notice (which shall not be less than fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice is served) the nature of his interest in the land and the name and address of each person whom the recipient of the notice believes is an occupier of the land and of each person whom he believes is as resects of the land such a person as is mentioned in the provisions of paragraphs b. and c. of this subsection

(2) A person who: a. Fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him in pursuance of the preceding subsection or b. In furnishing any information in compliance with such a notice makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material manner shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale Ian Jordan

From: Emily Temple Sent: 01 August 2016 15:07 To: Jason Varley Cc: 'Bill Elgar' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason Thank you for your email. I must say that I find the LPA’s repeated questions to be bordering on harassment now, and reflect a lack of clarify on the LPA’s approach to the enforcement investigation. In each instance either my client or myself have endeavoured to answer the questions asked. Please note that each set of questions costs my client money to respond. This is being recorded and will be reflected in the Appellant’s cost application during the appeal. I trust I will not have to have to submit a formal complaint regarding the number of repeated questions asked by the LPA to aid your investigations. With this in mind please find further answers to your queries below. I trust this will now conclude your investigations. 1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site? The pre-fabricated elements were delivered in at least two pieces, plus the roof. This was combined with the other structural components of the build on site, and the interior was then installed. You are once again referred to my email of 11th July regarding the fact that the chalet cannot be transported from the site, it will need to be demolished. The build process is irrelevant to the LPA’s investigation, it is the taking away from a site which is the relevant legal definition of a caravan, to which this build has been repeatedly evidenced to not comply with. 2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in? All elements were installed at the time of the initial construction – April-May 2010. 3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab? To ensure air circulation beneath the property and access to utilities. 4. The invoice from Wiltshire Homes states that you ordered a “Wilshire Home Burleigh 38 x 20 – custom style and fit”, was there a brochure you (or they) can supply otherwise how would you know what the home you were ordering was going to look like? There is no brochure. The pre-fabricated parts were a custom design order as required by the owner and as described in the invoice document the LPA already has.

Kind Regards

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

1 intended recipient you should not use the contents nor disclose them to any other person. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately.

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Dear Mr Elgar, Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification: 1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site? 2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in? 3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab? 4. The invoice from Wiltshire Homes states that you ordered a “Wilshire Home Burleigh 38 x 20 – custom style and fit”, was there a brochure you (or they) can supply otherwise how would you know what the home you were ordering was going to look like? If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist. I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail. Yours sincerely, Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 16 August 2016 15:48 To: Emily Temple Cc: Bill Elgar Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: S16 Requisition for Information 16 Aug 2016.pdf

Dear Emily,

In response to your email below it would have been useful if your client was available at the site visit to answer questions about the structure being brought on to the site and being put together which may avoided additional questions and cost. I fail to see how asking questions for clarity purposes in respect of an alleged breach of planning control amounts to harassment. However, having considered the information provided and gathered on site I write to advise you that the Council believes that the structure is a mobile home and therefore falls within the definition of a ‘caravan’. The Council intends to issue and serve an enforcement notice in respect of this unauthorised use. To assist with this I attach a Section 16 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended) Requisitions for Information. It is dated 16 August 2016 and a copy is attached by way of service on your client, Mr W Elgar, who is legally required to respond to it within 14 days. Should you need anything to be explained or if you would prefer to make a representation in person please contact me to arrange a date and time.

In addition the mobile home in the Caravan Club area should also be removed from the site failing which an enforcement notice will be served in respect of this. I would appreciate a timetable for its removal being provided.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 15:07 To: Jason Varley Cc: 'Bill Elgar' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email.

I must say that I find the LPA’s repeated questions to be bordering on harassment now, and reflect a lack of clarify on the LPA’s approach to the enforcement investigation. In each instance either my client or myself have endeavoured to answer the questions asked. Please note that each set of questions costs my client money to respond. This is being recorded and will be reflected in the Appellant’s cost application during the appeal. I trust I will not have to have to submit a formal complaint regarding the number of repeated questions asked by the LPA to aid your investigations.

With this in mind please find further answers to your queries below. I trust this will now conclude your investigations.

1 1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site?

The pre-fabricated elements were delivered in at least two pieces, plus the roof. This was combined with the other structural components of the build on site, and the interior was then installed. You are once again referred to my email of 11th July regarding the fact that the chalet cannot be transported from the site, it will need to be demolished. The build process is irrelevant to the LPA’s investigation, it is the taking away from a site which is the relevant legal definition of a caravan, to which this build has been repeatedly evidenced to not comply with.

2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in?

All elements were installed at the time of the initial construction – April-May 2010.

3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab?

To ensure air circulation beneath the property and access to utilities.

4. The invoice from Wiltshire Homes states that you ordered a “Wilshire Home Burleigh 38 x 20 – custom style and fit”, was there a brochure you (or they) can supply otherwise how would you know what the home you were ordering was going to look like?

There is no brochure. The pre-fabricated parts were a custom design order as required by the owner and as described in the invoice document the LPA already has.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

This email and any associated files, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you should not use the contents nor disclose them to any other person. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately.

Cert no. FS 577092

2 From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Mr Elgar,

Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification:

1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site? 2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in? 3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab? 4. The invoice from Wiltshire Homes states that you ordered a “Wilshire Home Burleigh 38 x 20 – custom style and fit”, was there a brochure you (or they) can supply otherwise how would you know what the home you were ordering was going to look like?

If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist.

I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

3 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: 'Emily Temple' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Mr Elgar,

Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification:

If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist.

I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Bill Elgar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 12:49 To: Jason Varley Subject: Fwd: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Emily Temple" To: "Bill Elgar" Cc: "lee elgar" Subject: FW: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Bill 1

The answers to the Council’s questions are as follows:

Dear Mr Varley

Please find answers below.

Question 11 The pre-fabricated elements of the dwelling needed to be ordered. The Council has a copy of the invoice from the manufacturer of these elements. There are no other details available as the property was constructed on site. This is supported by Mr Livingstone’s email which refers to “erected”.

Question 12 All of the construction materials for the chalet were delivered by lorries of varying sizes depending on the size and load of the materials delivered. This is consistent with all construction developments.

Question 13 The chalet was constructed on site. This included the foundations, brick support and the pre- fabricated pieces of the property. As already supplied in the Pegasus email of 11th July, the chalet would need to be demolished to be removed from the site, it cannot be transported in two pieces.

You can cut/paste or add to the above in an email to the Council’s officer if you wish: [email protected]

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Manchester

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

T The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been h moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct e file and location. li n k e www.pegasuspg.co.uk d i

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

2 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2016 14:59 To: Emily Temple ; Katie Herrington Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Please see attached letter for action.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

All messages sent by this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus products. This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the detection and eradication of viruses.

Click here to report this email as spam.

3 Ian Jordan

From: Bill Elgar Sent: 01 August 2016 12:49 To: Jason Varley Subject: Fwd: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: Letter to Mr Elgar Bluebell farm 29-7-16.pdf; ATT00001.htm

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Emily Temple" To: "Bill Elgar" Cc: "lee elgar" Subject: FW: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Bill The answers to the Council’s questions are as follows: Dear Mr Varley Please find answers below. Question 11 The pre-fabricated elements of the dwelling needed to be ordered. The Council has a copy of the invoice from the manufacturer of these elements. There are no other details available as the property was constructed on site. This is supported by Mr Livingstone’s email which refers to “erected”. Question 12 All of the construction materials for the chalet were delivered by lorries of varying sizes depending on the size and load of the materials delivered. This is consistent with all construction developments. Question 13 The chalet was constructed on site. This included the foundations, brick support and the pre- fabricated pieces of the property. As already supplied in the Pegasus email of 11th July, the chalet would need to be demolished to be removed from the site, it cannot be transported in two pieces. You can cut/paste or add to the above in an email to the Council’s officer if you wish: [email protected]

Kind Regards

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

T The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been h moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct e file and location. li n k e www.pegasuspg.co.uk d i 1

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2016 14:59 To: Emily Temple ; Katie Herrington Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Dear Emily, Please see attached letter for action. Yours sincerely, Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

| ִִ | 6681 974 0118 www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

Click here to report this email as spam.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Lorna Grace Sent: 04 August 2016 11:04 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

F/1997/65373 – Dated 07.05.1997 F/1997/66278 – Dated 21.11.1997

From: Lorna Grace Sent: 04 August 2016 10:01 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

F/1998/68217 – Dated 21.10.1998 F/1998/67969 – Dated 24.08.1998 152107 - Dated 08.01.2016 F/2000/2015 – Dated 04.09.2000

The other applications for 1997 I have requested from Sues team in my absence.

Regards

Lorna

From: Jason Varley Sent: 04 August 2016 09:29 To: Lorna Grace Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Thanks for this – can you tell me the decision dates for all of these please I don’t know what The Quilters link is.

From: Lorna Grace Sent: 04 August 2016 07:55 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

I have managed to find the following on line. Planweb was throwing up The Quilters as well. Is this part of Bluebell Farm?

F/1997/65373 – Proposed single storey side and rear extension to dwelling – Approved F/1997/66278 – Proposed erection of replacement dwelling – Approved F/1998/68217 – Proposed erection of cattery – Approved F/1998/67969 – Proposed erection of dwelling (Amendment to Approval F/1997/66278) F/2000/2015 – Proposed erection of detached double garage and installation of Velux windows in roof of dwelling (Retrospective) 152107 – Certificate of existing lawfulness for the use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main dwelling – Refused

The 1997 & 1998 applications will be on microfiche not online.

Hope this information helps

Regards

Lorna

From: Jason Varley Sent: 03 August 2016 16:26 To: Lorna Grace Subject: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Lorna,

Can you find me any planning history for the above site as I need to put it in an expediency report.

Kind regards,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

2 Ian Jordan

From: Philip Thorneywork Sent: 06 August 2016 08:06 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

HI Jason

I have done a few searches on this alleged caravan manufacturer & found this listing under the ‘phone No on the receipt

No quite a mobile home / chalet business !

As You Like It Landscaping Malthouse Cottage Farm, Brinkworth, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 5BY

01666 510 414 SN15 5BY Landscape Contractors in Chippenham

Phil T

From: Jason Varley Sent: 02 August 2016 12:08 To: Philip Thorneywork Subject: FW: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Phil,

See the latest email below. Can you contact Wiltshire Homes (Malthouse Cottage Farm, Brinkworth, Wilts, SN15 5BY) 01666 510414 or 07854 222307 – these details came from their CLUED application? If they are still a going concern, I couldn’t find them on the internet, can you ask if they manufacture mobile homes and if they have a brochure or website that you can look at. Can you just say you are interested in their product for a home and ask for any details to be sent to your OHR email account rather than your Wokingham work one. The main purpose of this is to find out what type of home they manufacture and how they deliver it to the clients site and in how many pieces.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 15:07 To: Jason Varley Cc: 'Bill Elgar' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email.

I must say that I find the LPA’s repeated questions to be bordering on harassment now, and reflect a lack of clarify on the LPA’s approach to the enforcement investigation. In each instance either my client or myself have 1 endeavoured to answer the questions asked. Please note that each set of questions costs my client money to respond. This is being recorded and will be reflected in the Appellant’s cost application during the appeal. I trust I will not have to have to submit a formal complaint regarding the number of repeated questions asked by the LPA to aid your investigations.

With this in mind please find further answers to your queries below. I trust this will now conclude your investigations.

1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site?

2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in?

All elements were installed at the time of the initial construction – April-May 2010.

3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab?

To ensure air circulation beneath the property and access to utilities.

There is no brochure. The pre-fabricated parts were a custom design order as required by the owner and as described in the invoice document the LPA already has.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple

Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

2 This email and any associated files, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you should not use the contents nor disclose them to any other person. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately.

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Mr Elgar,

Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification:

If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist.

I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

3 Ian Jordan

From: Katie Herrington Sent: 06 September 2016 12:14 To: '[email protected]' Cc: Justin Turvey; Jason Varley Subject: Appeal 3153354 - Bluebell farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham - 152107 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~ Attachments: Letter to Pegasus Group Bluebell farm 19-8-16 signed.pdf

Dear Craig

No additional information has been submitted by the appellant in respect of the appeal, and therefore the Council has no further comments in respect of the appeal statement already submitted.

However, as advised in the Council’s appeal statement, an enforcement investigation is ongoing in respect of site. For the Inspector’s information, the Council undertook a Land Registry search with a view to serving an Enforcement Notice. The search revealed that the owner of the land is, in fact, the Council. The matter has therefore been passed to the Council’s Legal Section with a view to recovery of the land. A letter from the Council’s Planning Enforcement Section to the agent stating this is appended for information.

The Council has questioned whether, in the circumstances, the appellant intends to continue with this appeal; however, no response has been forthcoming.

Kindest regards

Katie Herrington Senior Planning Officer Wokingham Borough Council Address: P.O. BOX 157, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR Tel: (0118) 974 6531 Mob: 07770956028 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wokingham.gov.uk

Please note, this email is an opinion of an officer of this council which is of an advisory nature only, and is given without prejudice to any formal decision taken in respect of development under the Town and Country Planning Act.

1 Ian Jordan

From: Emily Temple Sent: 11 July 2016 14:24 To: Katie Herrington Cc: Jason Varley; Justin Turvey Subject: Re: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane: APP/X0360/X/16/3153354 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Dear Katie

Thank you for your email. Please find the response to your queries as follows;

Question 1 is functionally irrelevant if the LPA are trying to determine if the property is a caravan. It doesn't matter how many pieces it is constructed from, only that it can be transported away from the site in no more than 2 pieces. In this case the chalet cannot be removed from site without demolition, thus breaking it in far more than two pieces.

With regards to Question 2, by 'it' I am referring to all the operational development involved in the construction, including foundations, brick skirt and frontage paving & steps, as well as the pre-fabricated parts. Thus 'it' was constructed in the current location of the dwelling. The appeal case, and the case made within the LDC application, is that the dwelling constitutes operational development which includes some prefabricated materials, but the whole construction is operational development. The LDC was determined by the LPA on this basis.

Given the answers to questions 1 and 2, question 3 is also irrelevant. A dwelling can be any size so long as it meets the relevant legal tests. For reasons explained within the appeal statement, the property does constitute an independent dwelling, and the LDC was submitted on this basis. The LPA had the opportunity to visit the site during the LDC application and I am informed an enforcement officer has also visited the site. As the LPA has failed to take measurements on site to assist with their considerations then I can confirm the external measurements are: 12m x 6m x 4.5m. Please note the height is measured from ground level, from the foundations and includes the brick skirt operational development.

With regard to question 4, reference is made to a reinforced concrete foundation base upon which the property sits.

For question 5, by 'it' I assume you are referring solely to the pre-fabricated element. The dwelling subject of the appeal was not lifted on, but constructed as per my answer to question 2. The means by which materials are brought into the site have no bearing on whether the dwelling is in fact a caravan. The legal test for a caravan is whether it can be transported away from the site in no more than two pieces. Functionally, this is not possible for this unit.

For question 6, the whole building, including all operational works, is fixed to the ground by concrete and its associated permanent utilities.

For question 7, there is a steel frame that's part of the pre-fabricated material used to construct the development. You are again referred to the question 2 and 5 answers.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate (Bracknell) Pegasus Group T 01344 203268 M 07743429473 Sent from iPhone

On 8 Jul 2016, at 16:09, Katie Herrington wrote:

1 Dear Emily We have reviewed your appeal statement, and seek some clarifications the nature of the structure at Bluebell Farm ASAP; 1. The report states it is a prefabricated chalet – How was it brought to the site (eg on a lorry/trailer) and in what form (eg flat packed), and in how many parts?(e.g in 1 or 2 pieces)? 2. Where was it constructed? 3. What are the dimensions of the unit in terms of its internal height, external width and external length? 4. What are the “associated foundations” being referred to in para 4.14(a)? 5. By what means was it lifted onto the concrete base? 6. How is it fixed to the ground and/or brick skirt? 7. What form of support does the timber structure have (eg is it a steel frame) and was this part of the prefabricated chalet that was brought to the site or was it constructed on site? I look forward to your response – I would be grateful if you could answer the above before the end of play Monday. Kindest regards Katie Herrington Planning Officer Wokingham Borough Council Address: P.O. BOX 157, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR Tel: (0118) 974 6531 Mob: 07770956028 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wokingham.gov.uk Please note, this email is an opinion of an officer of this council which is of an advisory nature only, and is given without prejudice to any formal decision taken in respect of development under the Town and Country Planning Act.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

Click here to report this email as spam.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 14 July 2016 12:06 To: 'Emily Temple' Cc: Katie Herrington Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm site visit ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Thank you for your e-mail. I can confirm that Katie Herrington and myself will attend the site at 10am on Tuesday 19 July.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 July 2016 09:23 To: Jason Varley Cc: Katie Herrington Subject: Bluebell Farm site visit

Dear Jason

Thanks for your email. To clarify, neither I nor my client has denied the LPA access to the site. I have merely sought to understand why a visit is required, when numerous officers have already been to site. The request for a site visit was made by Katie, thus it was not clear that a visit was required in connection with your enforcement investigation, especially as one of your staff has already been to site prior to the serving of the first PCN. It would have been clearer if that request had come from your team initially.

As I understand it, your powers of entry on apply when reasonably required to investigate a suspected breach of planning control. As a site visit into that investigation has already been carried out, it is not unreasonable to ask why a further visit is reasonably necessary. Otherwise your powers of entry do not apply. Thank you for finally providing the reasoning for the visit, which I was seeking.

Despite the above, it won't be necessary for you to use your formal powers of entry, as we invite you to the site on Tuesday 19th July at 10am. Due to the short notice, my clients will be at work on Friday and so unable to provide access, but will provide access to you on Tuesday.

Please confirm if you agree to this time.

Kind Regards Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

PLANNING | DESIGN | ENVIRONMENT | ECONOMICS

1 Abbey House | Grenville Place | Bracknell | RG12 1BP

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Cert no. FS 577092

Click here to report this email as spam.

2 Ian Jordan

Dear Emily,

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 15:07 To: Jason Varley Cc: 'Bill Elgar' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email.

With this in mind please find further answers to your queries below. I trust this will now conclude your investigations.

1 1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site?

2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in?

All elements were installed at the time of the initial construction – April-May 2010.

3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab?

To ensure air circulation beneath the property and access to utilities.

There is no brochure. The pre-fabricated parts were a custom design order as required by the owner and as described in the invoice document the LPA already has.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Cert no. FS 577092

2 From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Mr Elgar,

Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification:

If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist.

I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

3 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 17 August 2016 10:42 To: 'Emily Temple' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Sorry if it was not clear, there is usually a covering letter that goes along with this but as I believed you were acting for a single client, Mr William Elgar, I did not think this was necessary. To be clear it is intended for William Elgar to answer as I assume he is aware of the circumstances of the occupiers as they are family members. Questions 3 and 6 are asked to gain confirmation that the situation has not changed now that an EN is going to be served, it is really a “belt and braces” approach.

Thank you for confirmation that the caravan in the Caravan Club area will be removed.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 August 2016 09:32 To: Jason Varley Cc: Bill Elgar Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email yesterday. I note the communication is addressed to “owners and occupiers”, yet question 2 asks if the person completing the questionnaire is the owner. To whom did you intend the communication be addressed, as it is not clear.

I would also appreciate understanding why questions 3-6 have been asked when this information has already been supplied in response to the Planning Contravention Notices served.

Finally, I can confirm the caravan within the caravan club area of the wider site will be removed within 3 months of this date.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple

1 Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

R Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, i Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the g Internet. h http://s29.postimg.org/sqnhidsb7/Linked_In.gif t - c www.pegasuspg.co.uk li c

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. http://s33.postimg.org/41d9q7ien/BSI.jpg Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 August 2016 15:48 To: Emily Temple Cc: Bill Elgar Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

2 Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 15:07 To: Jason Varley Cc: 'Bill Elgar' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email.

With this in mind please find further answers to your queries below. I trust this will now conclude your investigations.

1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site?

2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in?

All elements were installed at the time of the initial construction – April-May 2010.

3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab?

To ensure air circulation beneath the property and access to utilities.

There is no brochure. The pre-fabricated parts were a custom design order as required by the owner and as described in the invoice document the LPA already has.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

3 T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Mr Elgar,

Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification:

If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist.

I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

5 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 18 August 2016 15:59 To: Shared Legal Solutions Cc: Marcia Head Subject: RFS/2016/082083 - Land Adj Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Road, Barkham RG40 4PR ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: Legal Instruction Form 18 Aug 2016 Bluebell Farm.doc; Expediency Report signed 16 Aug 2016.pdf; Draft EN and plan.pdf

Dear SLS,

Please find attached instructions for action.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

1 Ian Jordan

From: Andy Glencross Sent: 19 August 2016 12:05 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: RFS/2016/082083 - Land Adj Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Road, Barkham RG40 4PR ~[OFFICIAL]~

Thanks Jason we will talk to Property about recovering our land.

Cheers

Andy Glencross Green Infrastructure Service Manager

0118 9746199 07500 975843

From: Jason Varley Sent: 19 August 2016 11:54 To: Andy Glencross Cc: Marcia Head Subject: RFS/2016/082083 - Land Adj Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Road, Barkham RG40 4PR ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Andy,

I write further to our telecon this morning regarding the above site where I believe the owners, Mr and Mrs William Elgar, have encroached into California Country Park (land owned by WBC). The nature of the incursion is the siting of a mobile home (currently being occupied by Lee and Louise Elgar and their child) and use as a Caravan Club site. An extract from the Land Registry is shown below and I also attach the LR documents for BK75734 and BK325729:

A certificate of lawfulness application (ref: 152107) was recently refused and is now being appealed for the use of the structure as a dwelling for more than 4 years, I believe it is a caravan therefore the test should be 10 years. I also attach my enforcement expediency report, OS extracts and the 2013 aerial photo for information purposes. Earlier aerial photos show how the site has changed to what is there now. In the meantime I will be writing to the planning agent to bring this matter to their attention. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.

I should be grateful if you could raise this matter with Property Services and Legal and advise what action is to be taken.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 19 August 2016 11:54 To: Andy Glencross Cc: Marcia Head Subject: RFS/2016/082083 - Land Adj Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Road, Barkham RG40 4PR ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: Official Copy (Register) - BK75734 Land Adj.pdf; Official Copy (Title Plan) - BK75734 Land Adj.pdf; Official Copy (Register) - BK325729 Bluebell Farm.pdf; Official Copy (Title Plan) - BK325729 Bluebell Farm.pdf; 1to500 OS Plan.pdf; 1to500 Aerial Photo 2013.pdf; Expediency Report signed 16 Aug 2016.pdf

Dear Andy,

1 A certificate of lawfulness application (ref: 152107) was recently refused and is now being appealed for the use of the structure as a dwelling for more than 4 years, I believe it is a caravan therefore the test should be 10 years. I also attach my enforcement expediency report, OS extracts and the 2013 aerial photo for information purposes. Earlier aerial photos show how the site has changed to what is there now. In the meantime I will be writing to the planning agent to bring this matter to their attention. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.

I should be grateful if you could raise this matter with Property Services and Legal and advise what action is to be taken.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Katie Herrington Sent: 21 April 2016 16:29 To: 'Emily Temple' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm 152107 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Dear Emily

Thank you for your email. you are welcome to submit a new Certificate of Lawfulness application with clearer evidence. However, please note that such the evidence must demonstrate that the unit has been in continuous independent residential occupation for a period of 10 years. It is understood that the unit in question is a caravan, and as such 10 year test will need to be applied.

Please note that the Planning Enforcement Team will be writing to your client to visit the site with a view to investigating the siting of caravans for residential occupation.

Many thanks

Katie Herrington From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 April 2016 15:09 To: Katie Herrington Subject: Bluebell Farm 152107

Dear Katie

I have been approached in connection with the recently refused certificate of lawfulness application at the above site. I have reviewed the evidence and do not think it was submitted clearly to the council in their first application. Notwithstanding this I also note from the Council’s decision notice that the incorrect test has been applied; the decision notice refers to a higher test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ rather than the ‘balance of probability’.

I am therefore minded to assist the landowner by either appealing against the Council’s decision with an application for costs (for the incorrect test being applied) or alternatively resubmitting a certificate of lawfulness application with clearer evidence.

Please would you let me know if the Planning Authority would be agreeable to a new application being submitted. If it is the strict view of the Planning Authority that the development is not lawful then I will recommend my client appeal.

I would also draw your attention to note that council tax cannot be requested for an independent C3 use that has not yet been granted lawfulness (as has been requested of my client).

I look forward to hearing from you,

Kind Regards Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

1 T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Click here to report this email as spam.

2 Ian Jordan

From: Emily Temple Sent: 23 August 2016 12:35 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Noted, thanks.

Kind Regards

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 August 2016 12:18 To: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Emily, Just to be clear the further PCN will be in respect of the COU. Jason From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 August 2016 12:14 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Dear Jason As previously advised, my client is on holiday until the 2nd September. If you wish to serve a further PCN in this matter, I would be willing to supply the Council with the property ownership information held by the client, once they have returned.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 August 2016 11:29 To: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Dear Emily, I am aware that land ownership does not have any bearing on planning consideration and that is why this issue would not have been investigated when considering application 152107. However on a practical note, if your client cannot legally occupy the land as they do not own it there may be no point in pursuing the appeal. The Land Registry details clearly show the ownership boundaries and it was only when investigating these during the preparation of an enforcement notice that this matter came to light. The Council would not serve an enforcement notice on itself so the relevant part of the Council will be instructing legal to undertake legal proceedings in due course. As part of this process your client will be written to, probably to ask for voluntary compliance, before formal action is taken. If you, or your client, wish to propose a remedy please let me know and I will forward it to the relevant department. When looking at the historic aerial photographs it appears that the residential curtilage to your client’s bungalow has been extended into agricultural land. I will be writing under separate cover and including a PCN in respect of this further matter. Yours sincerely, Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

www.Wokingham.gov.uk | ִִ | 6681 974 0118

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 August 2016 10:02 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Dear Jason Thank you for your email. To the best of my client’s knowledge, understanding, and property records, the land identified in application 152107 is within their ownership. Therefore, the submitted certificates were completed correctly.

2 You will be aware that matters of land ownership have no bearing in the planning context of whether lawful development has or has not occurred, and thus the appeal will not be withdrawn. As the appeal is in response to the determination of application 152107, which the Council fully considered and determined, the planning case has not been prejudiced. As you allege that the land lies within the Council’s ownership, then I would query the following; a) What evidence do you hold that might contradict my client’s historic property records? b) Why you have not sought to resolve the matter outside of the planning regime; entering into discussions with my client and I would appear to have added wholly unnecessary time and cost to the appeal proceedings for a matter that could be resolved without our engagement c) You have indicated that you are preparing an Enforcement Notice. If you have contrary evidence of land ownership to my client, I assume such a notice will be served on the Council, and not my client? d) Whether you have or will undertake a cost-benefit analysis before serving the Notice referred to at (c), as surely if the appeal is successful, and you have contrary evidence of land ownership, the Council would stand to benefit from financial gain?

Kind Regards

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 August 2016 13:19 To: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Dear Emily, Please see the attached letter for consideration. Yours sincerely, Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

www.Wokingham.gov.uk | ִִ | 6681 974 0118

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

3 Click here to report this email as spam.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

4 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 23 August 2016 11:29 To: 'Emily Temple' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

I am aware that land ownership does not have any bearing on planning consideration and that is why this issue would not have been investigated when considering application 152107. However on a practical note, if your client cannot legally occupy the land as they do not own it there may be no point in pursuing the appeal.

The Land Registry details clearly show the ownership boundaries and it was only when investigating these during the preparation of an enforcement notice that this matter came to light. The Council would not serve an enforcement notice on itself so the relevant part of the Council will be instructing legal to undertake legal proceedings in due course. As part of this process your client will be written to, probably to ask for voluntary compliance, before formal action is taken. If you, or your client, wish to propose a remedy please let me know and I will forward it to the relevant department.

When looking at the historic aerial photographs it appears that the residential curtilage to your client’s bungalow has been extended into agricultural land. I will be writing under separate cover and including a PCN in respect of this further matter.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 August 2016 10:02 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email. To the best of my client’s knowledge, understanding, and property records, the land identified in application 152107 is within their ownership. Therefore, the submitted certificates were completed correctly.

You will be aware that matters of land ownership have no bearing in the planning context of whether lawful development has or has not occurred, and thus the appeal will not be withdrawn. As the appeal is in response to the determination of application 152107, which the Council fully considered and determined, the planning case has not been prejudiced.

As you allege that the land lies within the Council’s ownership, then I would query the following; a) What evidence do you hold that might contradict my client’s historic property records?

1 b) Why you have not sought to resolve the matter outside of the planning regime; entering into discussions with my client and I would appear to have added wholly unnecessary time and cost to the appeal proceedings for a matter that could be resolved without our engagement c) You have indicated that you are preparing an Enforcement Notice. If you have contrary evidence of land ownership to my client, I assume such a notice will be served on the Council, and not my client? d) Whether you have or will undertake a cost-benefit analysis before serving the Notice referred to at (c), as surely if the appeal is successful, and you have contrary evidence of land ownership, the Council would stand to benefit from financial gain?

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 August 2016 13:19 To: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Please see the attached letter for consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

2 Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

3 Ian Jordan

From: Ian Bailey Sent: 24 August 2016 10:17 To: Justin Turvey; Katie Herrington Cc: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm ~[OFFICIAL]~

Hi Katie,

I’ve just seen an email from Deb Brown saying property have recently appointed a contractor to deal with encroachment. It might be worth speaking to Deb (or Dee Maddox-Hinton?) and to ask that this one is prioritised.

Let me know if you need any help.

Ian

Ian Bailey Service Manager, Development Management Tel: (0118) 974 6007

From: Justin Turvey Sent: 24 August 2016 09:11 To: Katie Herrington Cc: Jason Varley; Ian Bailey Subject: Bluebell Farm ~[OFFICIAL]~

Hi Katie,

Spoke to Jason on this one earlier.

I think the statement we submitted with the appeal states that we would be looking to take enforcement action.

You’ve seen the emails relating to the Title which shows we own the land, so we can’t now serve a Notice (because we can’t serve a Notice on ourselves). It has been passed on to Property Services for them to use their powers as landowner.

Although the ownership of the land isn’t necessarily relevant for our Inspector, it would be useful if we could explain why we have decided against issuing a Notice. Can you get an update from Property Services (I think the contact is in an email from Jason or Andy G) and draft an update letter for PINS.

Jason has spoken to the agent who says they are looking to continue with the appeal, but if we get Property Services to hurry up and evict them, or at least move the ‘caravan’ then we are on really good ground by the time the Inspector considers this. I’ve not seen a case where costs were awarded against both main parties – you could be creating planning history!

Thanks.

Justin Turvey

Team Manager, Development Management

1 0118 974 6349 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

2 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 25 August 2016 11:18 To: Lorna Grace Subject: FW: BLUEBELL FARM (previously known as The Quilters), COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Lorna,

Please can you get me copies of the pp’s and plans (mainly red line site area) for these:

F/1998/67969 – Proposed erection of dwelling (Amendment to Approval F/1997/66278) F/2000/2015 – Proposed erection of detached double garage and installation of Velux windows in roof of dwelling (Retrospective)

Kind regards,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

From: Lorna Grace Sent: 04 August 2016 11:04 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

F/1997/65373 – Dated 07.05.1997 F/1997/66278 – Dated 21.11.1997

From: Lorna Grace Sent: 04 August 2016 10:01 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

F/1998/68217 – Dated 21.10.1998 F/1998/67969 – Dated 24.08.1998 152107 - Dated 08.01.2016 F/2000/2015 – Dated 04.09.2000

The other applications for 1997 I have requested from Sues team in my absence.

Regards

Lorna

From: Jason Varley Sent: 04 August 2016 09:29 To: Lorna Grace Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Thanks for this – can you tell me the decision dates for all of these please I don’t know what The Quilters link is.

From: Lorna Grace Sent: 04 August 2016 07:55 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

I have managed to find the following on line. Planweb was throwing up The Quilters as well. Is this part of Bluebell Farm?

The 1997 & 1998 applications will be on microfiche not online.

Hope this information helps

Regards

Lorna

From: Jason Varley Sent: 03 August 2016 16:26 To: Lorna Grace Subject: BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Lorna,

Can you find me any planning history for the above site as I need to put it in an expediency report.

Kind regards,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

2 Ian Jordan

From: Emily Temple Sent: 26 August 2016 16:44 To: Jason Varley Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: requisition for information.pdf

Dear Jason Please find response attached.

Kind Regards

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

Click here to report this email as spam.

1 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 29 July 2016 14:59 To: 'Emily Temple'; Katie Herrington Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: Letter to Mr Elgar Bluebell farm 29-7-16.pdf

Dear Emily,

Please see attached letter for action.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

1 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 17 August 2016 11:01 To: 'Emily Temple' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Thanks Emily,

That will be fine.

Jason

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 August 2016 10:55 To: Jason Varley Cc: Bill Elgar Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for the clarification. For information, Mr Elgar is out of the Country on holiday until 2nd September. As the response is due before this time, I will be completing the questionnaire on his behalf at his instruction, and submitting to you. I trust this will be acceptable?

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 August 2016 10:42 To: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Thank you for confirmation that the caravan in the Caravan Club area will be removed.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 August 2016 09:32 To: Jason Varley Cc: Bill Elgar Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

I would also appreciate understanding why questions 3-6 have been asked when this information has already been supplied in response to the Planning Contravention Notices served.

Finally, I can confirm the caravan within the caravan club area of the wider site will be removed within 3 months of this date.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 August 2016 15:48 To: Emily Temple Cc: Bill Elgar Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Emily,

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

3 From: Emily Temple [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 15:07 To: Jason Varley Cc: 'Bill Elgar' Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email.

With this in mind please find further answers to your queries below. I trust this will now conclude your investigations.

1. In how many prefabricated pieces was the chalet delivered, what did each consist of and how were they put together on site?

2. There is a steel frame beneath the timber floor of the chalet and it is supported on this, metal tripods and concrete blocks, at what stage were these elements put in?

All elements were installed at the time of the initial construction – April-May 2010.

3. What is the reason for the chalet not being built onto the concrete foundation slab?

To ensure air circulation beneath the property and access to utilities.

There is no brochure. The pre-fabricated parts were a custom design order as required by the owner and as described in the invoice document the LPA already has.

Kind Regards

Emily Temple Associate Planner Pegasus Group

T 01344 207777 | M 07743 429473 | DD 01344 203268 | E [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this email message.

www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Pegasus Group is the trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales.

Cert no. FS 577092

From: Jason Varley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2016 14:13 To: 'Bill Elgar' Cc: Emily Temple Subject: RE: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~

Dear Mr Elgar,

Thank you for the additional information below. I still don’t think it fully explains what the Council has asked and I ask further questions for clarification:

If these questions are still not clear I can serve a further PCN if this would assist.

I have copied this email to your agent in the hope that this can be explained in more detail.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

0118 974 6681 | [email protected] | www.Wokingham.gov.uk

Please note this email constitutes an Officer opinion only, it is given without prejudice and does not constitute any formal determination under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Click here to report this email as spam.

If you are not the addressees any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you received this message in error please return it to the originator and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it.

6 Ian Jordan

From: Marcia Head Sent: 13 July 2016 13:35 To: Justin Turvey; Katie Herrington Cc: Jason Varley Subject: Use or building ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~ Attachments: upper culham farm.pdf

And another one!

Marcia Head Service Manager Regulation and Compliance Development Management and Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR Direct dial 01189 746447

1 Ian Jordan

From: Marcia Head Sent: 13 July 2016 13:23 To: Justin Turvey; Katie Herrington Cc: Jason Varley Subject: Use or building operation ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~ Attachments: Tintagel farm.pdf; When is a caravan not a caravan.pdf

Here is some useful stuff on whether a caravan/mobile home/chalet is a use or a building operation.

Kind regards

Marcia Head Service Manager Regulation and Compliance Development Management and Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR Direct dial 01189 746447

1 Ian Jordan

From: Jason Varley Sent: 07 April 2016 16:59 To: Planning Enforcement Cc: Philip Thorneywork; Mark O'Leary Subject: FW: Bluebell Farm (behind The Finches next door to Honeysuckle Cott), Commonfield Lane, Barkham ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: IMG_2448.JPG; photo 1.jpg; photo 2.jpg

Lorna,

We have recently refused CLUED 152107 as it wasn’t proven to be a separate dwelling (this in my view wrongly referred to the 4 year rule rather than the 10 year rule) – Revenue Services are going out this week to rate it for Council Tax.

Please put this on as: Siting of mobile home(s) and caravan(s) as independent dwelling(s).

List planning and enforcement history and pass to Phil.

Allocate to Phil (Phil please visit this with Mark there may be issues relating to separate or ancillary uses) – there also appear to be lots of other caravans in the pictures which have been investigated historically.

Try and have a look from off-site and aerial photos then send a PCN. The owner, Mr Elgar, is already jumpy that he might be getting enforcement action according to Kim Irvine in Council Tax.

Kind regards,

Jason Varley Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

From: Katie Herrington Sent: 07 April 2016 16:16 To: Jason Varley Subject: Blue Bell Farm ~[OFFICIAL]~

HI Jason

That’s the only decent one I could find (img 2448), I attach a few others for reference. I had a pre-app on site (second visit) and took loads of photos – but I fear they were not transferred and were deleted. Note that the certificate was refused as the unit appeared to be ancillary, rather than an issue with the time span.

Katie Herrington Planning Officer Wokingham Borough Council Address: P.O. BOX 157, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR Tel: (0118) 974 6531 Mob: 07770956028 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wokingham.gov.uk

2 Ian Jordan

From: David Maguire Sent: 14 July 2016 14:43 To: Jason Varley Cc: Justin Turvey Subject: 31 Barkham Ride- 152851 ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~ Attachments: Officers Report..docx; SKM_654e16071414090.pdf; RE: 14784-31 Barkham Road Barkham-152851 ~[OFFICIAL]~; RE: 14784-31 Barkham Road Barkham-152851 ~[OFFICIAL]~; Additional Information 152851- 31 Barkham Ride.pdf; Additional Information.pdf

Hi Jason,

Hopefully this covers us- I presume that the yellow paragraphs will have to be deleted within the decision notice as discussed in favour of two separate notices. The only example I have come across re. a split decision is CLE/2010/1528 for info. on the format. Happy to edit if you think it needs more. Do you mind having a look Justin if possible to ensure you’re happy with the approach?

Many thanks

David Maguire Planning Officer Planning, Regulations and Enforcement Wokingham Borough Council Address: P.O. BOX 157, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR Tel: (0118) 9746502 Mob:07879608806 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wokingham.gov.uk

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 July 2016 14:10 To: David Maguire Subject: Message from KM_654e

1 Ian Jordan

From: Katie Herrington Sent: 06 July 2016 16:17 To: Jason Varley; Philip Thorneywork Cc: Marcia Head Subject: FW: Planning Inspectorate APP/X0360/X/16/3153354: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, RG40 4PR ~[OFFICIAL]~ Attachments: Start Letter - Planning Appeals - 05 Jul 2016.pdf; 01 APPEAL FORM - 126241.pdf; Appeal Statement ETE 280616.pdf; Appendix 1 decision notice.pdf; Appendix 1 officer report.pdf; Appendix 2 stat dec.pdf

Hi Phil

The appeal has come in for the refused certificate at Bluebell Farm. It is proposed to dealt with under the written reps. procedure. What is happening regarding enforcement action on the site at the moment?

Many thanks

Katie H

From: Ginny Parry On Behalf Of Planning Appeals Sent: 05 July 2016 10:56 To: Katie Herrington Cc: Justin Turvey Subject: FW: Planning Inspectorate APP/X0360/X/16/3153354: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, RG40 4PR ~[UNCLASSIFIED]~

Dear Katie,

Please find attached a start letter for the above appeal, I have attached the grounds etc. Please confirm that you are happy with this procedure? Also please let me know the following:-

Can the site be seen from seen from public land? Is it essential for the inspector to enter the site and/or any adjoining properties? Are there any health and safety issues you are aware of?

On the application there are a number of internal consultees. Please advise whether you want them all re- consulted about the appeal and if there are any additional ones to consult. All other parties consulted on the application (e.g. Parishes, Ward Members, neighbours and statutory consultees) will be notified of the appeal.

Kind regards,

Ginny Parry Appeals Assistant Development & Regeneration - Planning Wokingham Borough Council Civic Offices Shute End Wokingham RG40 1BN

Tel: 0118 974 6437 Email: [email protected] 1 www.wokingham.gov.uk Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 July 2016 09:19 To: Planning Appeals Subject: Planning Inspectorate APP/X0360/X/16/3153354: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, RG40 4PR

The Planning Inspectorate (England) Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

The Planning Inspectorate (Wales) Crown Buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Twitter: @PINSgov

This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to or from the Planning Inspectorate may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned by Websense Email Security Gateway for the presence of computer viruses.

**********************************************************************

Click here to report this email as spam.

Land Adj to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR ENFORCEMENT NOTICE - PLAN 1

This form should be sent to; [email protected].

Please note that by instructing Shared Legal Solutions you have agreed to pay for all reasonable external legal costs.

All fields marked with ( * ) are mandatory.

Instructing officer* Jason Varley 18.08.16

Email Address* [email protected]

Telephone Number:* 0118 974 6681

Service Area the work is being done for:* Business Assurance and Democratic Services

Children’s Services X Development Management & Regulatory Services

Health and Wellbeing (and DASS)

Legal and Electoral Services

Neighbourhood Services

Optalis / WEL / WHL

Resources

Transformation

Unit the work is being Planning Enforcement done for:*

Cost code for disbursements and 278000505 work to be charged to:*

Matter Description;* Land Adjacent to Bluebell Far, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR Service of Enforcement Notice

wrk SSIDHU/184108 Page 1

Is this matter connected to any other matter Yes currently being undertaken by SLS or have you already X No discussed this matter with anyone in SLS?* If yes, please give details

What is the requested service X Standard – advice within 20 working days of full level for this work? instructions being received by SLS

Expedited – advice within 5 working days of full instructions being received by SLS**

Please note our standard service is a full response will be provided within 20 working days from receipt of full instructions. If you require an expedited service and advice provided within 5 working days then please state below the reason for urgency. Please note that there will be 50% uplift in costs for such expedited work.

**If the SLS is unable to provide an expedited service level then you will be notified.

Reason for urgency

wrk SSIDHU/184108 Page 2

Tel: 0118 974 6681 (Direct Line) Email: [email protected] Ref: RFS/PPT/2016/082803 Date: 29th July 2016

This letter includes a formal notice to which you must respond

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Reference: RFS/2016/082803 Site: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Without planning permission, the change of use of “the Land” for the Allegation: siting of two caravans/mobile homes for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding

Dear Mr Elgar;

I write further to your Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) response received today. I don’t believe that you have adequately answered questions 11, 12 and 13 in respect of the mobile home which you refer to as a “prefab chalet”.

In respect of question 11 you say there are no manufacturer details for it but Exhibit WE4 of your Statutory declaration dated 17 September 2015 which is an invoice from Wiltshire Homes it refers to a Wiltshire Home “Burleigh”, I cannot find this company or type of home on the internet. Are you able to provide the manufacturers details of what you ordered?

Question 12 asks how it was brought on to the site. This is not contained in the Pegasus email dated 11 July 2016. Please can you answer. Question 13 asks how it was put together on the land, again this is not answered in the Pegasus email dated 11 July 2016.

Please provide answers to the above within the next 7 days.

Yours sincerely

Jason Varley Plannning Enforcement Officer Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

e-cc – Emily Temple – Pegasus Group Tel: 0118 974 6681 (Direct Line) Email: [email protected] Ref: RFS/2016/082803 Date: 19th August 2016

Sent by email only

Mrs Emily Temple Pegasus Group Development Management Abbey House P.O. Box 157 Grenville Place Shute End, Wokingham Bracknell Berkshire RG40 1WR Berkshire Tel: (0118) 974 6000 RG12 1BP Fax: (0118) 974 6484 Minicom No: (0118) 977 8909 DX: 33506 – Wokingham

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Dear Mrs Temple;

I write in respect of the above matter about which we have been in recent correspondence. It has now come to my attention that the land on which the chalet/mobile home is sited plus part of the Caravan Site is not in your client’s ownership, it is in fact owned by the Council. The Council will be contacting them under separate cover to recover their land.

In the meantime your client has an appeal running whereby they have made a false claim, on the application form, that they are the owner of the land. For information the following warning is contained on the application form:

“Warning: The amended section 194 of the 1990 Act provides that it is an offence to furnish false or misleading information or to withhold material information with intent to deceive. Section 193(7) enables the authority to revoke, at any time, a certificate they may have issued as a result of such false or misleading information.”

In light of this information I would welcome, at your earliest convenience, an indication of whether your client is intending to proceed with the current appeal.

Yours sincerely

Jason Varley Plannning Enforcement Officer Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTICE

IMPORTANT - THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

Ref: RFS/2016/082803

SERVED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE is served by the Council because it appears to them that there may have been a breach of planning control, within section 171A (1) of the above Act, at the land described below. It is served on you as a person who appears to be the owner or occupier of the land or has another interest in it, or who is carrying out operations in, on, over or under the land or is using it for any purpose. The Council require you, in exercise of their powers under section 171C (2) and (3), so far as you are able, to provide certain information about interest in, and activities on, the land.

2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE RELATES Land at Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, Wokingham Berkshire RG40 4PR (‘the Land’) shown edged by a red line on the attached plan.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED

Without planning permission, the change of use of “the Land” for the siting of two caravans/mobile homes for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding. These are referred to as caravan/mobile home 1 and 2 on the attached plan.

4. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Provide in writing, the following information:

1. The name and address of any person(s) known to you as having an interest in “the Land” whether as freeholder, mortgagee, lessee or otherwise.

2. Do you have any interest “the Land” & if so what is that interest?

3. When did your interest in “the Land” commence?

4. When was the creation of hardstanding on “the Land” substantially completed?

5. Who occupies caravans/mobile homes 1 and 2 on “the Land”?

6. Do you or any person or company, collect or receive rent or any other payment, either directly or indirectly, from the occupiers the caravans/mobile homes?

7. If the answer to 6 above is “yes”, from whom is it received?

8. Are there any tenancy agreements for the occupiers of the caravans/mobile homes 1 and 2, if so, please provide details?

9. Do any of the occupiers of the caravans/mobile homes 1 and 2 have any special medical or social needs? If so please state name, age and issue/need.

10. Are there any school age children residing on a permanent basis in the caravans/mobile homes 1 and 2 and if so, please state name age & at which school do they attend?

11. What are the manufacturer details for the two caravans/mobile homes 1 and 2 (eg make, model)?

12. How were the caravans/mobile homes 1 and 2 brought to the site (eg towed, transporter, how many pieces) and were the steel frames attached?

13. How was the caravan/mobile home 1, you refer to as a “chalet”, put together once brought on to “the Land”? Describe how it is set on the concrete base, attached to its steel frame, supported, bricked in and any fixing points or supports.

14. Did you apply for Building Regulations for the caravan/mobile home you refer to as a “chalet”, if not, why not?

15. Is there anything else you wish to add?

I hereby declare that the information I have provided in completing this questionnaire is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:

Signed: Dated:

Print Name:

Time within which the information must be provided: within twenty-one days, beginning with the day on which this notice is served on you:

5. OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE If you wish to make an offer to apply for planning permission, or to refrain from carrying out any operations or activities, or to undertake remedial works; or to make any representations about this notice, the Council, or representatives of the Council by prior arrangement will consider them at Council Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR should you make an appointment, where you will be able to make any such offer or representations in person at that time and place.

If the Council serve a stop notice, under section 183 of the 1990 Act, section 186(5)(b) of the 1990 Act provides that should you otherwise become entitled (under section 186) to compensate for loss or damage attributable to that notice, no such compensation will be payable in respect of any loss or damage which could have been avoided had you given the Council the information required by this notice, or had you otherwise co-operated with the Council when responding to it.

Dated: 13th July 2016

Signed: Council's Authorised Officer

Development Management & Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR

PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTICE

IMPORTANT - THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991)

Ref: RFS/PPT/2016/082803

SERVED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE is served by the Council because it appears to them that there may have been a breach of planning control, within section 171A (1) of the above Act, at the land described below. It is served on you as a person who appears to be the owner or occupier of the land or has another interest in it, or who is carrying out operations in, on, over or under the land or is using it for any purpose. The Council require you, in exercise of their powers under section 171C (2) and (3), so far as you are able, to provide certain information about interest in, and activities on, the land.

2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE RELATES Land at Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, Wokingham Berkshire RG40 4PR (‘the Land’) shown edged by a red line on the attached plan.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED

Without planning permission, the change of use of “the Land” for the siting of a caravan or Mobile home for human habitation, including the creation of hardstanding.

4. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Provide in writing, the following information:

1. The name and address of any person(s) known to you as having an interest in “the Land” whether as freeholder, mortgagee, lessee or otherwise.

2. Do you have any interest “the Land” & if so what is that interest?

3. When did your interest in “the Land” commence?

4. What was “the Land” used for before its use for the siting of a caravan/Mobile home for human habitation?

5. When was the creation of hardstanding on “the Land” substantially completed?

6. Who occupies the caravan / Mobile home on the land?

7. Do you or any person or company, collect or receive rent or any other payment, either directly or indirectly, from the occupiers the caravan/Mobile home?

8. If the answer to 7 above is “yes”, from whom is it received ?

9. Are there any tenancy agreements for the occupiers of the caravan/Mobile home?, if so, please provide details?

10. Does any of the occupiers of the caravan/Mobile home have any special medical or social needs? If so please state name, age & Issue / need

11. Is there any school age child residing on a permanent basis in the caravan/Mobile Home & if so, please state name age & at which school do they attend?

12. Is there anything else you wish to add?

I hereby declare that the information I have provided in completing this questionnaire is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:

Signed: Dated:

Print Name:

Time within which the information must be provided: within twenty-one days, beginning with the day on which this notice is served on you:

5. OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE If you wish to make an offer to apply for planning permission, or to refrain from carrying out any operations or activities, or to undertake remedial works; or to make any representations about this notice, the Council, or representatives of the Council by prior arrangement will consider them at Council Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1WR should you make an appointment , where you will be able to make any such offer or representations in person at that time and place.

If the Council serve a stop notice, under section 183 of the 1990 Act, section 186(5)(b) of the 1990 Act provides that should you otherwise become entitled (under section 186) to compensate for loss or damage attributable to that notice, no such compensation will be payable in respect of any loss or damage which could have been avoided had you given the Council the information required by this notice, or had you otherwise co-operated with the Council when responding to it.

Dated: 16th June 2016

Signed: Council's Authorised Officer

Development Management & Regulatory Services Wokingham Borough Council Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR Tel: 0118 974 6681 (Direct Line) Email: [email protected] Ref: RFS/PPT/2016/082803 Date: 13th July 2016

This letter includes a formal notice to which you must respond

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Dear Mr Elgar;

I write regarding a recent visit to the site, when it was noticed that there appears to be caravans/mobile homes at the above property regarding which, the local authority does not have any records of Planning Permission.

Enclosed with this letter is a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN). This notice is being served upon you because the Local Planning Authority has reason to believe that a breach of planning control may be occurring.

You are legally required to respond to it within 21 days. Please read the PCN carefully. Should you need anything in the correspondence to be explained or if you would prefer to make a representation in person please contact me to arrange a date and time. If you are unsure about the requirements of notice you should take it and this letter to a Citizens Advice Bureau or a Solicitor who will be able help you.

I also write to advise you that Katie Herrington and myself will be attending the site at 2.00pm on Friday 15 July 2016 under powers contained in Section 196 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Please ensure that full access is made available.

Yours sincerely

Jason Varley Plannning Enforcement Officer Team Manager - Development Management (Enforcement)

e-cc – Emily Temple – Pegasus Group Tel: 0118 974 6614 (Direct Line) Email: [email protected] Ref: RFS/PPT/2016/082803 Date: 16th June 2016

This letter includes a formal notice to which you must respond

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Reference: RFS/PPT/2016/082803 Site: Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR Without planning permission, the change of use of land , creating hardstanding and positioning a mobile home & use of that mobile Allegation: home as living accommodation

Dear Mr Elgar;

If you are unsure about the requirements of notice you should take it and this letter to a Citizens Advice Bureau or a Solicitor who will be able help you

Yours sincerely

Philip Thorneywork Plannning Enforcement Officer Development Management (Enforcement)

WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

ENFORCEMENT AUTHORISATION FORM

NOTE: All notices for signature to HoDM must be accompanied by a completed version of this form.

Type of notice Enforcement Notice

Address LAND ADJACENT TO BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR

Breach of Condition Notice – Section 187A (10 years) Enforcement Notice – Operational development – Section 171A(1)(a) (4 years) Enforcement Notice – Material Change of use – Section 171A(1)(a) (10 years except use as dwelling 4 years) Enforcement Notice breach of condition – Section 171A(1)(b) (10` years)

Activity Name and Date Signature

Expediency report completed. Signed by DM Team Leader

Notice drafted by Case Officer

Notice agreed by Legal Services (e-mail reply sufficient)

Notice top copy and plan agreed by DM Team Leader

Notice signed by HoDM

Date notice served

Appendix Three – Land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham

Tool to assist with assessing harm

Score 1 Is the breach: Worsening? (1) 0 Stable? (0) 2 Highway safety issue Yes? (2) 0 No? (0) 3 Other safety issue Yes? (2) 0 (not covered by other No? (0) legislation) 4 Is it causing serious or Yes? (1) 1 irreversible harm to the No? (0) environment or surrounding area 5 Complainant Immediate neighbour? (2) 1 Parish Council/Other? (1) Anonymous/malicious? (0) 6 Age of breach Within 6 months of immunity? (2) 0 Less than 3 months old? (1) More than 3 months old? (0) 7 Major planning policy Yes? (1) 1 breach No? (0) 8 Flood risk Zone 3 (2) 0 Zones 1-2 (1) NFR (0) 9 Is there harm Widespread? (2) 1 Local? (1) None?(0) 10 Breach of planning condition Yes? (1) 0 or Article 4 direction No? (0) 11 Conservation Area or Yes? (1) 0 adjacent to No? (0) 12 Listed Building or affecting Yes?(1) 0 character or setting of No? (0) 13 Particularly sensitive site eg Yes? (1) 1 SSSI, AONB, Scheduled No? (0) Ancient Monument, Listed Garden, Archaeological Importance 14 Undesirable precedent Yes? (1) 1 (please provide details) No? (0) Total 6

IMPORTANT - THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE Material Change of Use

ISSUED BY: WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (the Council)

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE which is issued by the Council because it appears to them that there has been a breach of planning control, under section 171A(1)(a) of the above Act, at the Land described below. They consider that it is expedient to issue this notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to other material planning considerations. The Explanatory Note at the end of this notice and the enclosures to which it refers contain important additional information.

2. THE LAND AFFECTED

Land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR (‘the Land’) shown edged by a thick red line on Plan 1.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL ALLEGED

Without planning permission the material change of use of land from agriculture/forestry to use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes with associated garden.

4. REASONS FOR ISSUING THIS NOTICE

1. It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last 10 years.

2. The unauthorised use/development constitutes an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development within the countryside, and outside of the settlement limit of the village of Barkham, thereby adversely affecting its character. Consequently, there is an in principle objection to the unauthorised use, which does not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CP1, CP3, CP6, CP7, CP8 and CP11 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policies CC01, CC02, CC03, TB06, TB21, TB23 and SAL05 of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) 2014. 3. The site is not identified as housing site in the adopted development plan and the Council can clearly demonstrate a robust and deliverable housing supply for the Borough until 2026 based upon sound evidence, and which complies with the NPPF 2012. Therefore there is no overriding reason for a presumption in favour of this existing use, which is considered contrary to NPPF policy, and policies CP1, CP3, and CP11 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy CC01 of the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) 2014.

5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO

(i) Cease the use of the Land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes. (ii) Remove the unauthorised mobile home from the Land, including brick skirt, access steps and platform, patio and concrete base. (iii) Remove all service connections and pipes form the Land which facilitate the unauthorised use. (iv) Remove the hard standing shown hatched on the plan, spread the area with topsoil to a depth of 20 cm and sow with grass seed. (v) Remove the boundary fences [shown between the points A, B and C] from the Land. (vi) Remove all residential paraphernalia from the Land including children’s play equipment and furniture. (vii) Remove from the land all materials resulting from compliance with steps (ii) to (v) above.

6. TIME FOR COMPLIANCE

Nine months from the date this notice takes effect.

7. WHEN THIS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT

This notice takes effect on ?? September 2016 unless an appeal is made against it beforehand.

Dated:

Signed: ...... Mrs Clare Lawrence Head of Development Management Development & Regeneration Service Wokingham Borough Council PO Box 157 Civic Offices Shute End Wokingham RG40 1WR

EXPLANATORY NOTE

YOUR RIGHT OF APPEAL There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State (at The Planning Inspectorate) against the notice. You can appeal against this Notice, but any appeal must be received, or posted in time to be received by the Secretary of State before the date specified in paragraph 7 of the Notice. Please see the sheet from The Planning Inspectorate at the end of this document headed ‘THIS IS IMPORTANT’ which tells you how to make an appeal.

The Planning Inspectorate produce a booklet entitled “Making your Appeal” which sets out your rights and the procedure to be followed. You can obtain this booklet either from Planning Inspectorate or from their Customer Support Unit by phoning 0117 3726372. The grounds on which an appeal may be made are set out in section 174 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. You will find an explanation of the grounds in the “Making your Appeal” booklet.

Under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) you may appeal on one or more of the following grounds (not all of these grounds may be relevant to you)

(b) that those matters have not occurred;

(d) that, at the date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters;

(e) that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 172;

(f) that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach;

(g) that any period specified in the notice in accordance with section 173(9) falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.

If you decide to appeal, when you submit it, you should state in writing the ground(s) on which you are appealing against the enforcement notice and you should state briefly the facts on which you intend to rely in support of each of those grounds. If you do not do this when you make your appeal the Secretary of State will send you a notice requiring you to do so within 14 days.

FEE PAYABLE FOR THE DEEMED APPLICATION

If you appeal under Ground (a) of Section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 this is the equivalent of applying for planning permission for the development alleged in the notice and you will have to pay a fee of 2 x £385.00 = £770.00. You should pay this fee to the Local Planning Authority.

Joint appellants need only pay one fee.

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DO NOT APPEAL

If you do not appeal against the Enforcement Notice, the Notice will take effect on the date specified in paragraph 7 indicated above and you must then ensure that the required steps for complying with it, and for which you may be held responsible are taken within the period/s specified in paragraph 6 of the Notice. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice that has taken effect is a criminal offence and can result in legal proceedings and or remedial action by the Council.

PERSONS SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

In accordance with the legislation, this Enforcement Notice has been served on the following individuals/organisations:

Name & Address of Persons Served Method

The legislative provisions for enforcement notices and appeals

The powers of local planning authorities to issue enforcement notices, expressions used in the enforcement of planning control and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against enforcement notices are in sections 171A, 171B and 172 to 177 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. These provisions are stated in full below.

Section 171A. (1) For the purposes of this Act - a. carrying out development without the required planning permission; or b. failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted, constitutes a breach of planning control. (2) For the purposes of this Act - a. the issue of an enforcement notice (defined in section 172); or b. the service of a breach of condition notice (defined in section 187A), constitutes taking enforcement action. (3) In this Part "planning permission" includes permission under Part III of the 1947 Act, of the 1962 Act or of the 1971 Act.

Section 171B. (1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed. (2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach. (3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach. (4) The preceding subsections do not prevent - a. the service of a breach of condition notice in respect of any breach of planning control if an enforcement notice in respect of the breach is in effect; or b. taking further enforcement action in respect of any breach of planning control if, during the period of four years ending with that action being taken, the local planning authority has taken or purported to take enforcement action in respect of that breach.

Section 172. (1) The local planning authority may issue a notice (in this Act referred to as an "enforcement notice") where it appears to them - a. that there has been a breach of planning control, and b. that it is expedient to issue the notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan to any other materials considerations. (2) A copy of an enforcement notice shall be served - a. on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates: and b. on any other person having an interest in the land, being an interest which, in the opinion of the authority, is materially affected by the notice. (3) The service of the notice shall take place - a. not more than twenty-eight days after its date of issue; and b. not less than twenty-eight days before the date specified in it as the date on which it is to take effect.

Section 173. (1) An enforcement notice shall state - a. the matters which appear to the local planning authority to constitute the breach of planning control; and b. the paragraph of section 171A(1) within which, in the opinion of the authority, the breach falls. (2) A notice complies with subsection (1)(a) if it enables any person on whom a copy of it is served to know what those matters are. (3) An enforcement notice shall specify the steps which the authority require to be taken, or the activities which the authority require to cease, in order to achieve, wholly or partly, any of the following purposes. (4) Those purposes are - a. remedying the breach by making any development comply with the terms (including conditions and limitations) of any planning permission which has been granted in respect of the land, by discontinuing any use of the land or by restoring the land to its conditions before the breach took place; or b. remedying any injury or amenity which has been caused by the breach. (5) An enforcement notice may, for example, require - a. the alteration or removal of any buildings or works; b. the carrying out of any building or other operations; c. any activity on the land not to be carried on except to the extent specified in the notice: or d. the contour of a deposit of refuse or waste materials on land to be modified by altering the gradient or gradients of its sides. (6) Where an enforcement notice is issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building, the notice may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to a subsection (7), is as similar as possible to the demolished building. (7) A replacement building - a. must comply with any requirement imposed by any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings; b. may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control; c. must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (1) and (2)). (8) An enforcement notice shall specify the date on which it is to take effect and, subject to sections 175(4) and 289(4A), shall take effect on that date. (9) An enforcement notice shall specify the period at the end of which any steps are required to have been taken or any activities are required to have ceased and may specify different periods for different steps or activities; and, where different periods apply to different steps or activities, references in this Part to the period for compliance with an enforcement notice, in relation to any step or activity, are to the period at the end of which the step is required to have been taken or the activity is required to have ceased. (10) An enforcement notice shall specify such additional matters as may be prescribed, and regulations may require every copy of an enforcement notice served under section 172 to be accompanied by an explanatory note giving prescribed information as to the right of appeal under section 174. (11) Where - a. an enforcement notice in respect of any breach of planning control could have required any buildings or works to be removed or any activity to cease, but does not do so; and b. all the requirements of the notice have been complied with, then, so far as the notice did not so require, planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities. (12) Where - a. an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and b. all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with, planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of that construction.

Section 173A. (1) The local planning authority may - a. withdraw an enforcement notice issued by them; or b. waive or relax any requirement of such a notice and, in particular, may extend any period specified in accordance with section 173(9). (2) The powers conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised whether or not the notice has taken effect. (3) The local planning authority shall, immediately after exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1), give notice of the exercise to every person who has been served with a copy of the enforcement notice or would, if the notice were re- issued, be served with a copy of it. (4) The withdrawal of an enforcement notice does not affect the powers of the local planning authority to issue a further enforcement notice.

Section 174. (1) A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates or a relevant occupier may appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, whether or not a copy of it has been served on him. (2) An appeal may be brought on any of the following grounds - a. that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to be granted or, as the case may be, the condition or limitation concerned ought to be discharged; b. that those matters have not occurred; c. that those matters (if they occurred) do not constitute a breach of planning control; d. that, at the date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters; e. that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 172; f. that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach; g. that any period specified in the notice in accordance with section 173(9) falls short of what should reasonably be allowed. (3) An appeal under this section shall be made either - a. by giving written notice of the appeal to the Secretary of State before the date specified in the enforcement notice as the date on which it is to take effect; or b. by sending such notice to him in a properly addressed and pre-paid letter posted to him at such time that, in the ordinary course of post, it would be delivered to him before that date. (4) A person who gives notice under subsection (3) shall submit to the Secretary of State, either when giving the notice or within the prescribed time, a statement in writing - a. specifying the grounds on which he is appealing against the enforcement notice; and b. giving such further information as may be prescribed. (5) If, where more than one ground is specified in that statement, the appellant does not give information required under subsection (4)(b) in relation to each of those grounds within the prescribed time, the Secretary of State may determine the appeal without considering any ground as to which the appellant has failed to give such information within that time. (6) In this section "relevant occupier" means a person who - a. on the date on which the enforcement notice is issued occupies the land to which the notice relates by virtue of a licence; and b. continues so to occupy the land when the appeal is brought.

Section 175. (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure which is to be followed on appeals under section 174 and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may - a. require the local planning authority to submit, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement indicating the submissions which they propose to put forward on the appeal; b. specify the matters to be included in such a statement; c. require the authority or the appellant to give such notice of such an appeal as may be prescribed; d. require the authority to send to the Secretary of State, within such period from the date of the bringing of the appeal as may be prescribed, a copy of the enforcement notice and a list of the persons served with copies of it. (2) The notice to be prescribed under subsection (1)(c) shall be such notice as in the opinion of the Secretary of State is likely to bring the appeal to the attention of persons in the locality in which the land to which the enforcement notice relates is situated. (3) Subject to section 176(4), the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose. (4) Where an appeal is brought under section 174 the enforcement notice shall subject to any order under section 289(4A) be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal. (5) Where any person has appealed to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice, no person shall be entitled, in any other proceedings instituted after the making of the appeal, to claim that the notice was not duly served on the person who appealed. (6) Schedule 6 applies to appeals under section 174, including appeals under that section as applied by regulations under any other provisions of this Act. (7) Subsection (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which authorises a Minster holding an inquiry under that section to make orders with respect to the costs of the parties) shall apply in relation to any proceedings before the Secretary of State on an appeal under section 174 as if those proceedings were an inquiry held by the Secretary of State under section 250.

Section 176. (1) On an appeal under section 174 the Secretary of State may - a. correct any defect, error or misdescription in the enforcement notice; or b. vary the terms of the enforcement notice, if he is satisfied that the correction or variation will not cause injustice to the appellant or the local planning authority. (2) Where the Secretary of State determines to allow the appeal, he may quash the notice. (2A) The Secretary of State shall give any directions necessary to give effect to his determination on the appeal. (3) The Secretary of State - a. may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with section 174(4) within the prescribed time; and b. may allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice if the local planning authority fail to comply with any requirement of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a),(b), or (d) of section 175(1) within the prescribed period. (4) If the Secretary of State proposes to dismiss an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) or to allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice under paragraph (b) of that subsection, he need not comply with section 175(3). (5) Where it would otherwise be a ground for determining an appeal under section 174 in favour of the appellant that a person required to be served with a copy of the enforcement notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard that fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.

Section 177. (1) On the determination of an appeal under section 174, the Secretary of State may - a. grant planning permission in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a beach of planning control, whether in relation to the whole or any part of those matters or in relation to the whole or any part of the land to which the notice relates; b. discharge any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted; c. determine whether, on the date on which the appeal was made, any existing use of the land was lawful, any operations which had been carried out in, on, over or under the land were lawful or any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted was lawful and, if so, issue a certificate under section 191. (1A) The provisions of sections 191 to 194 mentioned in subsection (1B) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) as they apply for the purposes of section 191, but as if - a. any reference to an application for a certificate were a reference to the appeal and any reference to the date of such an application were a reference to the date on which the appeal is made; and b. references to the local planning authority were references to the Secretary of State. (1B) Those provisions are: sections 191(5) to (7), 193(4) (so far as it related to the form of the certificate), (6) and (7) and 194. (2) In considering whether to grant planning permission under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the subject matter of the enforcement notice, and to any other material considerations. (3) The planning permission that may be granted under subsection (1) is any planning permission that might be granted on an application under Part III. (4) Where under subsection (1) the Secretary of State discharges a condition or limitation, he may substitute another condition or limitation for it, whether more or less onerous. (5) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought under section 174, the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permission in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control.

(5A) Where - a. the statement under subsection (4) of section 174 specifies the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; b. any fee is payable under regulations made by virtue of section 303 in respect of the application deemed to be made by virtue of the appeal; and c. the Secretary of State gives notice in writing to the appellant specifying the period within which the fee must be paid, then, if that fee is not paid within that period, the appeal, so far as brought on that ground, and the application shall lapse at the end of that period. (6) Any planning permission granted under subsection (1) on an appeal shall be treated as granted on the application deemed to have been made by the appellant. (7) In relation to a grant of planning permission or a determination under subsection (1) the Secretary of State's decision shall be final. (8) For the purposes of section 69 the Secretary of State's decision shall be treated as having been given by him in dealing with an application for planning permission made to the local planning authority.

site notes PPT

( Phil Thorneywork Via Civica Flare )082803 Bluebell Farm, Commonfield lane

Item 5 13/4/2016

VISITED SITE, 2 mobile homes seen on site, one by the house (ancilliary?) one in the area subject to the planning app. An additional static caravan was positioned reasonably close to the 2nd Mobile Home - far enough to comply with required spacing / safety.

No touring units were seen.

Item 6 21/4/2016

WAS a listed member of Caravan Club - until 17/4/2016 - "stop Use" notice / letter issued by caravan club for failure to provide adequate H & Safety details for use as a CC member.

DID have 5 pitches for Licensed use. Now ceased

( possibility that the concrete pads for touring 'vans may still remain)

Item 7 27/4/2016

Mssg from Caravan Club, paperwork submitted, C-Club considering re-licensing for use, no more than 5 ..... see plan in folder

Item 8 25/5/2016 update

C-Club now renewed licence. Touring 'vans ok. 2nd mobile home still in dispute

Item 13 6/7/2016

Inspected Bluebell farm, new static caravan in position adjacent to disputed "chalet"

Disputed "chalet" is without wheels on the chassis, encased in brickwork, based upon a concrete slab (substantial concrete thickness) a brick & concrete porch is positioned adjacent to the front entrance with a substantial "staging area" in front of the door. decision to be made by Jason Varley as to it's status

Park Homes- examples

Address: LAND ADJACENT TO BLUEBELL FARM, COMMONFIELD LANE, BARKHAM, RG40 4PR

RFS Numbers: RFS/2016/082083

Expediency Report

1.0 Background Information

• This matter has not been previously considered by the Committee. • There are no process issues with regard to this site. • There has been no previous enforcement action on the site.

A recent Certificate of Lawfulness application for the use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main dwelling, ref: 152107. This was refused on 8 January 2016 and is the subject of an appeal. It is considered that the mobile home falls within the definition of a ‘caravan’ and it is therefore the 10 year rule that applies in this case and not the 4 year rule under which the certificate application was made.

2.0 The Site

The land subject of this report is within an area of designated countryside bounded by timber fence on three sides. There is a single mobile home occupied by the son of Mr and Mrs Elgar, who live at the adjoining Bluebell Farm, and his wife and young child. It has a separate vehicular access, steps up to an access platform, a garden and a patio area. The mobile home is set upon a concrete base and is supported by a metal framework (with ‘jacking point’ stickers stuck to it) resting on metal tripods and concrete blocks. There is also an axle stub attached to the metal framework. Services are connected and a brick skirt has been constructed around the base.

• The site is within an area of designated as countryside.

• The site is also located within 500m of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

• The site is located within the Thames Basin Heathland SPA 5km zone (SPA)

• The site is within a contaminated land consultation zone.

Historically there have been no development proposals for the land prior to the current unauthorised residential use situated within the countryside. This involves the stationing of a mobile home with vehicular access and associated base materials and other related service infrastructure.

Fig 1 – Site location plan

Fig 2 – Photograph 1 of the mobile home

Fig 3 – Photograph 2 of the mobile home

(a) Whenever it is possible to recognise a single main purpose of the occupier’s use of his land to which secondary activities are incidental or ancillary, the whole unit of occupation is considered. (b) Even though the occupier carries on a variety of activities and it is not possible to say that one is incidental or ancillary to another, the entire unit of occupation should be considered. (c) Where there are two or more physically separate and distinct uses, occupied as a single unit, but for substantially different and unrelated purposes, each area used for a different main purpose (together with its incidental and ancillary activities) ought to be considered a separate planning unit. • A further consideration in identifying the correct planning unit arose in a case, which considered a piece of land which had been divided into small plots for occupation by caravan dwellers. In this case it was held in Rawlings v Secretary of State for the Environment and Tandridge District Council 91990) 60 PCR 413, that the selection of the appropriate planning unit was essentially a matter of fact and degree. • It is considered in this case that there are several appropriate planning units which are annotated on the plan above and discussed and defined in more detail below.

3.0 Planning and enforcement history

Application Decision Proposal/decision Reference Date F/1997/65373 Approved Proposed single storey side and rear extension to 07.05.97 dwelling F/1997/66278 Approved Proposed erection of replacement dwelling 21.11.97 F/1998/68217 Approved Proposed erection of cattery 21.10.98 F/1998/67969 Approved Proposed erection of dwelling (Amendment to Approval 24.08.98 F/1997/66278) F/2000/2015 Approved Proposed erection of detached double garage and 04.09.00 installation of Velux windows in roof of dwelling (Retrospective) 152107 Refused Certificate of existing lawfulness for the use of existing chalet or mobile home as separate residence to the main 08.01.16 dwelling

4.0 Alleged breach of planning control

Without planning permission:

(i) The material unauthorised change of use of land from agriculture/forestry to use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes.

5.0 Planning considerations

Constraints: Countryside Thames Basin Heaths SPA 5km zone Within 500m of SSSI (75m) Contaminated land consultation zone

National Policy NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

Adopted Core Strategy DPD 2010 CP1 Sustainable Development CP3 General development principles CP6 Managing travel demand CP7 Biodiversity CP8 Thames Basin Heathlands SPA CP11 Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)

Managing Development Delivery Local CC01 Presumption in favour of sustainable Plan 2014 developments CC02 Development Limits CC03 Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping TB06 Development of private gardens TB21 Landscape Character TB23 Biodiversity and Development SAL0 Thames Basin Heaths Mitigation 5 Measures

Supplementary Planning Documents LCA Landscape Character Assessment (SPD) 2004 BDG Borough Design Guide 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy CIL CIL 6 April 2015 South East Plan saved policy NRM6 Thames Basin Heath SPA

6.0 Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be:

(i) Is the structure a ‘caravan’? (ii) The inappropriate use of land for residential purposes within the countryside involving the stationing of a mobile home for use as a dwelling and associated service connections on the land, the provision of hardstanding and bounded by close boarded fencing. Resulting in adverse impact on the character of the countryside. (iii) Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

7.0 Is the structure a caravan?

A ‘caravan’ is defined under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 as:

"... any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted but does not include:

Any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or

Any tent."

This definition has been modified by Section 13 (1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ("The 1968 Act"), which deals with twinunit caravans. Section 13 (1) provides that:

"A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which: a) Is composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices; and b) Is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer), shall not be treated as not being (or not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be moved on a highway when assembled."

Section 13(2) of the 1968 Act (amended October 2006) prescribes the following maximum dimensions for "twin unit caravans":

(a) length (exclusive of any drawbar) 65.616 feet (20 metres);

(b) width 23.309 feet (6.8 metres);

(c) overall height of living accommodation (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level) 10.006 feet (3.05 metres).

The owner and occupier claim that the ‘chalet’ is a building and that it cannot be moved from the site in one or two pieces. Planning Contravention Notice responses are vague and do not give adequate detail of exactly how the structure was brought to and put together on the site.

It is considered that the structure, which is called a ‘chalet’ by the owners and occupiers, falls within the above definition of a ‘caravan’. Its steel frame which has ‘jacking points’ and an axle stub is not fixed to the ground and rests upon concrete blocks and metal tripods set on top of a concrete base. There is a brick skirt, steps and access landing to the front door which is often the case for mobile homes. It falls within the size parameters of a ‘twin unit caravan’ and it is considered capable of being moved from the site in one or two pieces whether by being unbolted or crane lifted. It is therefore considered to fall within the definition of a ‘caravan’ which is the subject of the 10 year rule for lawfulness.

8.0 Principle of development and appropriateness of the location for the proposed use

The main National and Local Planning Policies are as follows:

National Planning Policy Framework 2012:

Notwithstanding the above, the residential use is considered to comprise inappropriate development in the countryside, and is therefore unacceptable in principle in planning terms. Para 103 is concerned with assessing flood risk. In this case the site falls within flood risk zone 1 which is low. So it is not anticipated that flood risk is an issue in this case. Para 109 is concerned with protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils, minimising impact upon biodiversity. It is important to prevent new and existing development from contributing towards unacceptable pollution levels of soil water noise and land instability. In such cases remediation works will be required. In this case, the unauthorised use constitutes use of land for residential purposes within the countryside, which although unlikely to result in land contamination causes harm the visual character of the countryside.

South East Plan saved policy NRM6 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA):

This policy states that “New residential development which is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. Such measures must be agreed with Natural England. In this case the site falls within the 5km zone and therefore a contribution towards SPA mitigation would be required.

Wokingham Borough Core Strategy 2010:

Policy CP1 states that “development within the borough should enhance the overall sustainability of the area through minimising impact on the environment and proposals that enhance the quality of the environment of the borough could include those that improve the openness of the areas outside of development limits” and that planning permission will be granted for development proposals that “maintain or enhance the high quality of the environment, minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider environment; limit any adverse effects on water quality (including ground water); ensure the provision of adequate drainage; incorporate facilities for recycling of water and waste to help reduce per capita water consumption; avoid areas of best and most versatile agricultural land; avoid areas where pollution (including noise) may impact upon the amenity of present and future occupiers, avoid increasing (and where possible reduce) risks of or from all forms of flooding (including from groundwater); provide attractive, functional, accessible, safe, secure and adaptable schemes and that demonstrate how they support opportunities for reducing the need to travel, particularly by private car”.

Policy CP3 states “planning permission will be granted for proposals that are of an appropriate scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character to the area together with a high quality of design without detriment to the amenities of adjoining land users including open spaces or occupiers and their quality of life, provide a functional, accessible, safe, secure and adaptable scheme; have no detrimental impact upon important ecological, heritage, landscape (including river valleys) or geological features or water courses. maintain or enhance the ability of the site to support fauna and flora including protected species; use the full potential of the site and contribute to the support for suitable complementary facilities and uses; contribute to a sense of place in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings (especially existing dwellings) including the use of appropriate landscaping; do not lead to a net loss of land’, and that ‘development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they have responded to the above criteria through the submission of Design and Access Statements which has clear informative plans, elevations and street scenes and where required Master plans, Development Briefs, Concept Statements and Design Codes”.

Policy CP6 states planning permission will be granted for schemes that “provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice; are located where there are or will be at the time of development choices in the mode of transport available and which minimise the distance people need to travel; improve the existing infrastructure network, including road, rail and public transport, enhance facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and other users including provision for those with reduced mobility and provide appropriate vehicular parking having regard to car ownership. The scheme should enhance road safety; and do not cause highway problems or lead to traffic related environmental problems”.

Policy CP7 provides that development will not be permitted where it may harm protected species unless the benefit of the development outweighs the harm and/or mitigation is put in place.

Policy CP8 states “development which alone or in combination is likely to have a significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures to avoid and mitigate any potential adverse effects are delivered”.

Policy CP11 states “In order to protect the separate identity of settlements and maintain the quality of the environment, proposals outside of development limits will not normally be permitted except where it contributes to diverse and sustainable rural enterprises within the Borough, or in the case of other countryside based enterprises and activities, it contributes to the enjoyment and/or promotes recreation in the countryside and that it does not lead to excessive encroachment or expansion of development away from the original buildings and that it is contained within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion, or in the case of replacement buildings would bring about environmental improvement, and in the case of residential extensions, does not result in inappropriate increases in the scale, form or footprint of the original building. In the case of replacement dwellings the proposal must bring about environmental improvements and not result in inappropriate increases in the scale, form or footprint of the original building”.

In the Council’s view there is no environmental benefit from allowing any form of residential development in this location, being outside the development boundary and within the countryside. The removal of the unauthorised use and mobile home is a step to restoring the land back to its former condition and contributing to the character of the countryside which adjoins it.

Managing Development Delivery Local Plan (Adopted Feb 2014):

Policy CC01 Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development, which states that “Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Development Plan for Wokingham Borough Council should be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy CC02 of the MDD Local Plan 2014 states “planning permission for proposals at the edge of settlements will only be granted where they can demonstrate that the development including boundary treatments is within development limits and respects the transition between the built up area and the open countryside by taking account of the character of the adjacent countryside and landscape’. This is clearly not the case in this instance as the area of land is outside of the development limits”.

Policy TB21 of the MDD Local Plan 2014 states “planning permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal addresses the specific requirements of the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment, including the landscape quality; landscape strategy; landscape sensitivity and key issues. Proposals shall retain or enhance the condition, character and features that contribute to the landscape”.

Policy TB23 of the MDD Local Plan 2014 states “planning permission for development proposals will only be granted where they comply with Policy CP7 – Biodiversity of the Core Strategy and also demonstrate how they provide opportunities through design, layout and landscaping to incorporate new biodiversity features or enhance existing, provide appropriate buffer zones between development proposals and designated sites as well as habitats and species of principle importance for nature conservation and ensure that all existing and new developments are ecologically permeable through the protection of existing and the provision of new continuous wildlife corridors, which shall be integrated and linked to the wider green infrastructure network”.

9.0 Acceptability of current use/development

The aerial photos show that the site was previously undeveloped land. The unauthorised residential use with its lawn, hardstanding and residential paraphernalia has degraded its landscape character and constitutes a visual intrusion within the countryside.

However, it is necessary to determine before instigating enforcement action whether an exception can be made to countryside and settlement limits policy to grant permission for a residential use on this site contrary inter alia to Para 17 of NPPF 2012 and the Council’s Local Plan policies.

In this case the Council’s view is that permission would not be granted for the stationing of a mobile home, as there is an in principle objection to the use of the site located within the countryside for residential purposes. The Council considers it important that the land is restored to its former condition as open countryside to contribute to the scattered pattern of rural development, and the overall character of the countryside. This in the Council’s view overrides the benefits of residential development. The retention of mobile home on this site clearly conflicts with this clear policy objective whether the use is of a temporary nature or permanent.

The use of the land for the siting of a mobile home in the Council’s view causes demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and is an intrusive form of development outside settlement limits. It would therefore fail Policy CP11, which is an established and robust policy that does not support the residential use on the site. In terms of sustainable development the current use fails in a number of areas, its countryside location, and its relative inaccessibility from public transport links and lack of other essential facilities. (Policy CP6).

It would on the above basis fail policies CP1 and CP3 as it would also not constitute a sustainable form of development. It has adverse impact upon the local environment reducing openness. In summary it is a planning policy requirement to create a safe and welldesigned environment for occupiers, and which minimises ecological impact. In the Council’s view no evidence has been produced to support the sustainability of the current unauthorised residential use.

10.0 Assessment - Principle of Development

The site is not within a site allocated for housing in the adopted development plan, and is situated within the countryside. There are no overriding reasons in terms of housing supply or need for the land to be used for residential purposes. The use is in principle contrary to the NPPF 2012, the Wokingham Borough LDF Adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, the Wokingham Borough Development Plan MDDDPD (Local Plan) 2014 and the Borough Design Guide SPD 2012.

The change of use constitutes an inappropriate, unacceptable encroachment of residential use within the countryside. Therefore in the Council’s view it has a detrimental effect upon the appearance and open character of the countryside. It results in an urbanising effect on the countryside, which is harmful to the rural location in which the site is located.

The site lies within the countryside as designated in the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy where development is strictly controlled under national, regional and local policies. The National Planning Policy Framework has an underlying presumption in favour of sustainable development which is carried through to the local Development Plan. The Managing Development Delivery Local Plan Policy CC01 states that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Development Plan for Wokingham Borough will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It is clear that the development would not bring about environmental improvement as it would introduce a new residential use into a countryside area. It is one of the 12 core planning principles of the NPPF (2010) (S.17) that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’. These uses in open countryside do not respect the prevailing character. By virtue of their visual obtrusiveness they impact on the countryside character of the area and are contrary to Policy CP11 as they do not maintain the quality of the environment or result in environmental improvement.

Policy CC02 defines the settlement development limits. The site is located within the countryside outside any defined settlement area and therefore the principle of development would be unacceptable.

Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy states that development must be appropriate in terms of its scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character to the area in which it is located and must be of high quality design without detriment to the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. It is not considered that the unauthorised development is appropriate in this area.

It is ultimately considered that the use in terms of its location and its impact represents unacceptable and unsustainable development within the countryside. Furthermore, it does not represent a sustainable use of the land within the countryside and would have a harmful urbanising impact on its openness which does not accord with the NPPF, MDD policies CC01, CC02, CC03, TB06, TB21, TB23 and SAL05 and CS policies CP1, CP3, CP6, CP7, CP8, CP9 and CP11.

11.0 Five Year Housing Land Supply

The October 2015 SHLAA demonstrates the Council’s five year housing land supply position against the full Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for the Borough.

The Council published the Final Berkshire (including South Bucks) Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in February 2016. The SHMA was commissioned by the six Berkshire Authorities and the Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The full Objectively Assessed Need for Wokingham Borough is 856 dwellings per annum 1 April 2013 – 31 March 2036.

The Councils position on housing land supply is that having regard to the OAN derived from the published SHMA, the Council can demonstrate a 6 year supply of housing land at 1 October 2015.

The authority can also demonstrate a 5.6 year supply of housing land at 1 October 2015 when having regard to the phased housing requirements in its adopted Core Strategy.

The OAN will need to be carefully considered along with supply capacity, unmet need from other areas and the authorities’ policy objectives. Once these elements are complete, the Council will ultimately produce a new housing provision target in a new Local Plan that will then be subject to an examination in public by an Inspector.

The Council has a robust and deliverable 5 year housing land supply. The site is not identified as a housing site in the adopted development plan and the Council can clearly demonstrate a robust and deliverable housing supply for the Borough until 2026 based upon sound evidence, and which complies with the NPPF.

12.0 Impact of the developments on the rural character of the area

The area remains predominantly rural in nature and the land around is still agricultural in nature. This area of Commonfield Lane has a distinct rural character apart from some isolated commercial uses and scattered residential properties. The overriding character is dominated by open rural countryside and sparse residential development of a mature nature. Glimpses of the development can be seen from Commonfield Lane which becomes more pronounced when moving along the access track towards the site entrance. The current unauthorised development on site has ostensibly changed this rural character by expanding residential use out into the surrounding countryside.

The site is situated in the Arborfield Cross and Barkham Settled and Farmed Clay J2, a landscape of moderate quality and sensitivity. The area is described in the Wokingham District Landscape Character Assessment (2004) SPD as a large, irregularly shaped area just to the south east of the centre of the district. Its London Clay geology is reflected in the flat to gently undulating landform. The principal land uses are settlement and agriculture. Large fields with hedgerows predominate both for arable and for sheep pasture with smaller, fenced paddocks featuring near to settlements. Hedgerow trees are important in retaining the rural, wooded feel of the landscape, in combination with small woodlands and shelterbelts and the presence of views towards woods on surrounding higher ground.

The unauthorised development does not respect the landscape nor does it enhance the condition, character and features that contribute to it. As such the development is considered to be contrary to MDD Policy TB21.

13.0 Impact on neighbours

14.0 Impact on Biodiversity and Thames Basin Heaths SPA

The site is adjacent to a SSSI therefore policies TB23 and CP7 need to be considered. Without any mitigation measures put in place through a legal agreement the unauthorised use by way of its existence as a new dwelling has an impact on the SPA which is contrary to MDD policy SAL05 and policy NRM6 of the South East Plan.

15.0 Highway issues

16.0 Summary of negotiations with transgressors

16 June 2016 – First letter and Planning Contravention Notice to site owners, William and Susan Elgar.

4 July 2016 – First PCN response.

11 July 2016 – Email correspondence with the planning agent discussing whether the mobile home/chalet falls within the definition of a caravan.

13 July 2016 – Second letter and PCN to William and Susan Elgar.

29 July 2016 – Second PCN response.

29 July 2016 – Letter requesting further clarification response to second PCN.

1 August 2016 – Response from William Elgar to letter dated 29 July 2016.

1 August 2016 – Email to William Elgar requesting further clarification.

1 August 2016 – Response from William Elgar’s planning agent.

17.0 Human Rights and Equalities

When a planning decision is made there is further provision that the Authority must take into account the public interest. In the vast majority of cases existing planning law has for many years demanded a balancing exercise between private rights and public interest and therefore the Local Planning Authority’s decision making will continue to take into account this balance.

a. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act b. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. This may include removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; taking steps to meet the special needs of those with a protected characteristic; encouraging participation in public life (or other areas where they are underrepresented) of people with a protected characteristic(s). c. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not including tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The PSED must be considered as a relevant factor when considering its decision but does not impose a duty to achieve the outcomes in s.149. The level of consideration required (i.e. due regard) will vary with the decision including such factors as: a. The importance of the decision and the severity of the impact on the Council’s ability to meet its PSED b. The likelihood of discriminatory effect or that it could eliminate existing discrimination. The Council should give greater consideration to decisions that have a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected characteristic and this impact may be unintentional. In appropriate cases, this may involve an understanding of the practical impact on individuals so affected by the decision. Regard should be had to the effect of mitigation taken to reduce any adverse impact. Further, the PSED is only one factor that needs to be considered when making a decision and may be balanced against other relevant factors. The Council is also entitled to take into account other relevant factors in respect of the decision, including financial resources and policy considerations. In appropriate cases, such countervailing factors may justify decisions which have an adverse impact on protected groups.

18.0 Conclusion

The introduction of the unauthorised use, development and associated paraphernalia of a scale has a cumulative and detrimental impact on this countryside location and the landscape character. The unauthorised use in the countryside is unacceptable in terms of their sustainable and visual impacts.

Paragraph 207 of the NPPF states that ‘enforcement action should be taken where it is appropriate to do so’. In this case it has been considered expedient to do so for the reasons outlined in this report in order to prevent the escalation of this and other such developments in the countryside in general.

The unauthorised development gives rise to serious harm to the rural character of the area and to the aim of national and local policy to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty.

The site is located within the countryside. The use and associated items, hardstanding and vehicles are incongruous features within the countryside setting and are harmful to the undeveloped character and amenity of the area. They represent unsustainable and inappropriate development in the countryside. As such they conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework are contrary to Wokingham Borough Core Strategy DPD 2010 policies CP1, CP3, CP6, CP7, CP8, CP9 and CP11; Wokingham Borough Managing Development Delivery Local Plan 2014 policies CC01, CC02, CC03, TB06, TB21, TB23 and SAL05; policy NRM6 of the South East Plan and the Borough Design Guide. It is considered capable of being moved from the site in one or two pieces and therefore falls within the definition of a ‘caravan’.

19.0 Recommendation The development has a detrimental impact on the character and visual amenity of the countryside location. The Council considers that it is expedient that an enforcement notice be served for the following reasons:

1. It appears to the Council that the change of use breach of planning control has occurred within the last 10 years.

Requirements of the notice:

(i) Cease the use of the Land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes. (ii) Remove the unauthorised mobile home from the Land, including brick skirt, access steps and platform, patio and concrete base. (iii) Remove all service connections and pipes form the Land which facilitate the unauthorised use. (iv) Remove the hard standing shown hatched on the plan, spread the area with topsoil to a depth of 20 cm and sow with grass seed. (v) Remove the boundary fences from the Land. (vi) Remove from the land all materials resulting from compliance with steps (ii) to (v) above.

Time for compliance:

9 months from when the notice takes effect.

Recommendations Agreed:

Signed:(Development Management Service Manager)

Dated: 16 August 2016

Report Author: Jason Varley IMPORTANT

THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

File Reference RFS/2016/082803

S16 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended)

To: Owners and Occupiers of land adjacent to Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham RG40 4PR shown edged by a thick red line on the attached plan (“the Land”)

REQUISITIONS FOR INFORMATION

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Provisions of Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (as amended) Wokingham Borough Council (“the Council”) hereby REQUIRES YOU WITHIN 14 DAYS after the date on which this Notice is served to reply in writing to the Council with the information requested below:

1. Your name and address

2. Are you the Owner of the Land – Yes/No

3. Names and ages of any children (under 18 years) living in the caravan/mobile home

4. Names and ages of children living at the Land who are attending a local school together with the name of that school

5. Names and ages of any persons with a registered disability living in the caravan/mobile home

6. Names and ages of any persons living at the Land with special needs that make them a vulnerable member of the community

7. Are any of the occupiers of the caravan/mobile home a Gypsy or Traveller - Yes/No

8. Anything else you would like the Council to be aware of?

DATED: 16 August 2016

SIGNED: (Council’s Authorised Officer)

Wokingham Borough Council, PO Box 157, Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1WR

NOTE

Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides as follows:

A notice specifying the land and the function and the enactment which confers the function and requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to the authority within a period specified in the notice (which shall not be less than fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice is served) the nature of his interest in the land and the name and address of each person whom the recipient of the notice believes is an occupier of the land and of each person whom he believes is as resects of the land such a person as is mentioned in the provisions of paragraphs b. and c. of this subsection

Return your response to:

Planning Enforcement, Wokingham Borough Council, PO Box 157, Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1WR Or e-mail: [email protected]

Site Visit Note – 19 July 2016

Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Finchampstead

Present: Jason Varley, Katie Herrington & Emily Temple (Pegasus Group)

Observed the mobile home (chalet) the subject of the refused CLUED application. Photos were taken underneath through the service hatches at the rear. Steel framework with ‘jacking point’ stickers were seen, along with at least 8 metal tripods and concrete blocks supporting the mobile home. A concrete base with a brick skirt and service pipes were also seen.

We also looked inside the Caravan Club area where there were 4 touring caravans (none of which had cars parked by them). There was also 1 static mobile home (no access as it was occupied), which had a timber skirt and lean-to on the side. ET advised it was occupied occasionally and was at the time of the visit.

There was a timber stable building which was used for incidental residential storage. It also had a washer and dryer for use by the Caravan Club site.

JV advised ET that we would await the PCN return before deciding on the next course of action.

[Photos taken]

JV Tel: (0118) 974 6531 (Direct Line) Email: [email protected] Date: 15/08/2016 My ref:152107 Your ref: APP/X0360/X/16/3153354

The Planning Inspectorate, Development & Regeneration Service C/O Craig Maxwell, Development Management Team Room 3/23, P.O. Box 157 Temple Quay House, Shute End, Wokingham Berkshire RG40 1WR 2 The Square, Tel: (0118) 974 6000 Bristol. Minicom No: (0118) 974 6991 BS1 6PN DX: 33506 - Wokingham

Dear Craig Maxwell,

PLANNING APPEAL - 152107– Bluebell Farm, Commonfield Lane, Barkham, RG40 4PR.

I write with reference to the above appeal. A full planning application (ref 152107) for the development subject to this appeal was received on the 21/07/2016 and validated on 24/07/2016. Planning permission was refused on 08/01/2016 and this appeal was received on 05/07/2016.

A copy of the decision notice with the reasons for refusal is enclosed in Appendix One. This letter amplifies aspects of the officer report in addressing the grounds of appeal.

COMMENTS ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A copy of the Officer’s report which explains the reasons for refusal has already been sent to the Inspectorate. However, since the issue of the decision, additional information has been provided by the applicant. Further investigation by the Council suggests the time period for lawfulness is 10 years and not 4, as stated by the appellant. It is requested that this is given consideration in this appeal. It is for this reason why the Inquiry procedure has been sought.

Appeal against the certificate

• The proposal was determined against the question sought in the certificate

The appellant argues under point 4.2 of the appellants statement of case that, ‘the Planning Decision makes reference to the ‘test’ of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This in an inappropriate application of the assessment guidance…which states that whilst the onus of proof is upon the appellant, the test to be achieved is ‘on the balance of probability…’

The Council acknowledges that the wrong ‘test’ was stated in the decision notice which should have been ‘the balance of probability’. It can clearly be seen in the ‘conclusion’ section of the officer’s report that the correct ‘test’ was used in considering the application. However, based on the evidence provided at the time of that Certificate of Lawful Development application it remains the Council’s view, that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the use of the chalet/mobile home is consistent with that of an independent habitable dwelling.

Wokingham Borough Council - A Unitary Authority Tel: (0118) 974 6000 www.wokingham.gov.uk 1 • New Information

The agent has submitted new information from the occupant of the chalet/mobile home in the form of a further Statutory Declaration. This statutory declaration provides evidence of a continued occupation over a 6 year period, stating that Mr Elgar had ‘lived in the property since 08th May 2010’, and also provides clearer information with regard to the degree of the independent nature of the chalet/mobile home, stating that ‘the property has its own kitchen and bathroom and does not rely on any services from Bluebell Farm’. Whilst the chalet/mobile home appears to have been used as an independent unit for 6 years, it has not been in such use for the relevant time period of 10 years for a Certificate of Lawfulness to be granted.

• The relevant time period for lawfulness

Since the issue of the decision, additional investigation by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team suggests the time period for lawfulness is 10 years and not 4, as stated by the appellant. Planning Contravention Notices have been served and their responses have been received and examined. An enforcement investigation is ongoing which is likely to result in the service of an enforcement notice.

• Whether the unit is a ‘building’ or a ‘caravan’

A ‘caravan’ is defined under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 as: "... any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted but does not include: Any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or Any tent."

This definition has been modified by Section 13 (1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ("The 1968 Act"), which deals with twin-unit caravans. Section 13 (1) provides that:

"A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which: a) Is composed of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other devices; and b) Is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer), shall not be treated as not being (or not having been) a caravan within the meaning of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be moved on a highway when assembled."

Section 13(2) of the 1968 Act (amended October 2006) prescribes the following maximum dimensions for "twin unit caravans": a) length (exclusive of any drawbar) 65.616 feet (20 metres); b) width 23.309 feet (6.8 metres); c) overall height of living accommodation (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level) 10.006 feet (3.05 metres).

Whilst the owner and occupier claim that the ‘chalet’ is a building, ongoing investigation by the Council’s Planning Enforcement team suggests that the unit is not a ‘building’, but rather a ‘caravan’.

The owner and occupier claim that the ‘chalet’ is a building and that it cannot be moved from the site in one or two pieces. The Planning Contravention Notice responses are vague and do not give adequate detail of exactly how the structure was brought to and put together on the site. However, the chalet/mobile home is not fixed to the ground. The chalet/mobile home rests upon concrete blocks and metal tripods set on top of a concrete base. The chalet/ mobile home has a steel frame has ‘jacking points’ and an axle stub which is not fixed to the ground (Appendix 2). 2

It is considered that the chalet/mobile home is capable of being moved from the site in one or two pieces by being unbolted and/or crane lifted. The chalet/mobile home also falls within the size parameters of a ‘twin unit caravan’. There is a brick skirt, steps and access landing to the front door which is often the case for mobile homes. Therefore, the chalet/ mobile home is considered to fall within the definition of a ‘caravan’ which is the subject of the 10 year rule for lawfulness.

We ask that the Inspector take this into consideration.

• Status of land upon which the chalet/mobile home sits

The land which the chalet/mobile home is situated does not appear to be lawfully residential in its use, and as such the ’10 year rule’ should be applied. Aerial images and historical planning applications demonstrate that the area of land subject to this certificate formed part of the adjacent woodland, and that such area is displayed as a separate parcel of land on mapping software that is based on Ordnance Survey reports.

Whether or not the wooded area forms part of the residential curtilage of the dwelling, and whether it has a residential use, is a matter of fact. Woodland normally forms a boundary or the cessation point of residential curtilage, and not an area of land, by its nature that could accommodate activities normally associated with a residential garden.

Although this part of the land may be owned by residential occupiers, this does not necessarily mean that it has residential use. The land to which the certificate relates appears to have been part of the adjacent woodland since at least 1981 until the removal of the trees in 2010 (Appendix 3). The historic planning application plans (Appendix 2)do not include or indicate that there was any development on the wooded part of the site.

In 2010 some of the trees to the south of the site had been removed and replaced with what appears to be hard standing areas. However the area subject to this appeal, in 2010, appears still to be tree covered. The submitted statutory declaration suggests that the caravan/chalet was only delivered and occupied on this part of the site in 2010. Based on the available evidence, it would appear that the land occupied by the chalet or mobile home has not been in residential use for the required period, having only occupied the site for 6 years.

I trust this letter, in addition to the Officer’s report, is sufficient in detailing the Council’s case. If you should have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Herrington Planning Officer – Development Management

APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE Copy of the Decision Notice for 152107

APPENDIX TWO

Photo 1: showing steel frame below the chalet/caravan and the label stating ‘jacking point’

Photo 2: The label stating ‘jacking point’

Photo 3: Jacks under the chalet/mobile home.

Photo 4: Photo of steel frame and it resting on concrete blocks

Photo 5: Photo of steel frame and it resting on concrete blocks

APPENDIX THREE This appendix consists of a number of plan and aerial photographs that demonstrate that the area subject to this appeal was not originally part of the residential curtilage of the dwelling Bluebell Farm.

This is an aerial image dated 1981. The area approximately outlined in green is a forested area having a relationship to the forest to the east rather than residential curtilage.

That area outlined in green corresponds to that area where the chalet/caravan (subject to this appeal) is located with its associated curtilage.

Excerpt from site plan (Appendix 1) : : 1981aerial

Figure1 photo 12

The Planning application F/1995/63171 determined on the 05/03/1996, for a replacement dwelling, also includes a forested/woodland area. Note that no buildings or hardstanding is shown to be located in the same area as demonstrated in figure 1. Note the position of the access in relation to the woodland area compared to the site plan subject to this appeal.

Figure 2: Planning application F/1995/63171

Excerpt from site plan (Appendix 1)

Theapproximately area outlined in green forested isa area havinga relationship the to forest to east, the ratherthan asresidential curtilage. Thatoutlined area in green corresponds to thatarea on site the plan the where chalet/caravan (subject this to appeal) is located withits Thisaerial isan image dated 1996. associatedcurtilage.

: : aerial imagefrom 1996.

Figure3

The Planning application F/1998/67969, determined on the 26/08/1998, for a replacement dwelling, also includes a forested/woodland area. Note that no buildings or hardstanding is shown to be located in the same area as demonstrated in figure 1 and 3. Note the position of the access in relation to the woodland area compared to the site plan subject to this appeal.

Figure 4: Plan from planning application F/1998/67969.

The area indicated with the green green the with indicated area The as forested area is a lines Figure 1-4. figures on demonstrated is area forested the that 5 shows site, the of south the towards thinned the ofsite. north the to remains but in outlined approximately That area on area that to green corresponds the where plan the site this to (subject chalet/caravan associated its with is located appeal) This is an aerial image dated 1999. 1999. dated image an aerial This is curtilage. : : aerial imagefrom 1999. Figure5

The Planning application F/2000/2015 determined on the 4/09/2016, for the erection of detached double garage and installation of velux windows in roof of dwelling, also includes a forested/woodland area. Note that no buildings or hardstanding is shown to be located in the same area as demonstrated in figure 1,2,3,and 4. Note the position of the access in relation to the woodland area compared to the site plan subject to this appeal, and that officer notes make reference to a fence and woodland. This indicates that this is also a boundary to the residential curtilage.

Figure 6: Plan from planning application F/2000/2015

Below is another plan from application F/2000/2015 determined on the 4/09/2016, for the erection of detached double garage and installation of velux windows in roof of dwelling. Note that that application excluded the forested area from the application site.

Figure 7: Plan from planning application F/2000/2015

\ J

THE CARAVAN

I IUB