Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry Held on 7, 8 and 9 April 2009 2 the Square Temple Quay Site Visit Made on 8 April 2009 Bristol BS1 6PN

Home , Yeading

The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry held on 7, 8 and 9 April 2009 2 The Square Temple Quay Site visit made on 8 April 2009 Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372 by Gloria McFarlane LLB(Hons) email:[email protected] BA(Hons) Solicitor (Non-practising) ov.uk an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: for Communities and Local Government 5 May 2009

Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/X/08/2086101 Yeading Fork Farm, Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 9DG • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Stephen O’Leary against the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application (Ref.5916/APP/2008/366) is dated 30 January 2008. • The application was made under section 191(1)(a) and 191(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. • The use and development for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is: (i) A general dealer’s use within the land edged red on Location Plan Drawing No.TN1 forming part of Yeading Fork Farm, Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 9DG, involving salvaged building materials including bricks, tiles, plywood, timber sleepers and windows; non-ferrous scrap metal including lead, zinc, copper and aluminium, along with domestic appliances in the form of washing machines and fridges, and miscellaneous furniture; together with private and commercial vehicles including motor cars, vans, trucks, trailers, trailer parts and horseboxes. (ii) Operational development in the form of eight containers/portacabins/sheds including stables shown edged in blue within the land edged in red on Location Plan Drawing No.TN1, having been used for storage purposes ordinarily incidental or ancillary to the general dealer’s use outlined in (i) above. (iii) Operational development by way of formation of an access track/roadway shown edged in green on Location Plan Drawing No.TN1 was substantially completed in excess of four years preceding the date of this LDC application, which for the avoidance of doubt excludes the resurfacing in concrete of the area cross hatched in green on the same drawing.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed in part and a certificate of lawful use or development is issued in the terms set out below in the Formal Decision.

Preliminary/Procedural Matters

1. All the witnesses gave oral evidence to the Inquiry either on oath or after making an affirmation. In addition to the witnesses who attended at the Inquiry, a large number of people had made statutory declarations and statements in support of the Appellant’s case. I will take these statutory declarations and statements into account in my appraisal of the evidence.

Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

2. The Appellant confirmed at the Inquiry and in writing 1 that the LDC application related only to the land edged red on location plan drawing no.TN1 (plan TN1) and not to the whole of the land known as Yeading Fork Farm. He also withdrew the application relating to the caravan shown edged in yellow on plan TN1 and confirmed that the container No.1 on plan TN1 shown edged in orange did not form part of the application. The wording of the LDC sought by the Appellant at the Inquiry is set out in the heading above.

The Appellant’s case: Main points

3. In support of his case the Appellant submitted 45 statutory declarations, three statements, two letters and a report. A number of people who made statutory declarations also gave oral evidence to the Inquiry. A statutory declaration made by Malcolm Colin McGee (more usually known as Matt McGee) in 2004 in respect of other proceedings was included in the Appellant’s exhibit to his statutory declaration 2.

4. The Appellant’s case was that Matt McGee and his brother John used the land edged red as a general dealer’s business prior the Appellant joining them in that business in 1990. John McGee was active in the general trading business until about 1999 but from then on he was less involved and there was a subsequent decline in the buying and selling of tractors, tractor parts, saddles and horse boxes. Matt McGee obtained adverse possession of Yeading Fork Farm (which included the appeal site) in September 2004. As the Appellant had helped Matt McGee in the proceedings he was granted the option to purchase a half share in the land. Both the Appellant and Matt McGee were registered as owners of the whole Farm on 5 September 2005. Matt McGee moved to Thailand in 2006 and the Appellant continued to use the land for the general dealer’s business. In May 2007 the Appellant bought Matt McGee’s share of the property and he is now registered as the sole proprietor.

5. The Appellant described the general dealer’s business use as follows: Salvaged building materials and non-ferrous metals are brought to the site, usually by individual builders or roofers, for sale. Perishable items such as timber and plywood and valuable items such as lead, zinc, copper and aluminium are stored in the containers and other salvaged materials such as bricks and roofing tiles are stacked alongside the containers or by the rear fence. The Appellant also buys wire which he strips using an electric wire stripper and he stores the resulting scrap metal in the containers prior to re-sale. Salvaged materials rarely remain on site for very long as the Appellant has numerous contacts who buy them. The Appellant takes the scrap metal to various scrap metal merchants for sale. Furniture is often collected by the Appellant’s contacts direct from the residential property that is being cleared. All dealings are in cash.

6. The containers/portacabins/sheds and the stables are used for storage and there is a tea hut/office. There have been containers etc on the site since before 1990 and the containers and portacabin have been in the locations shown on plan TN1 since October 2003 3.

1 Document 9 2 Pages 2-9 of Exhibit SAFO’L 1 3 Mr O’Leary in cross-examination

2 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

7. The track is an integral part of the general dealer’s business use and it has been in use since before 1990. The works that have been carried out on the track since 30 January 2004 are remedial improvements or maintenance works.

The Council’s case: Main points

8. The Council disputes the accuracy of the Appellant’s own evidence and the evidence given on his behalf and maintains that the evidence provided is not credible. The Council submits that the Appellant has wholly failed to discharge the burden of proof upon him to demonstrate that the developments described in the application are lawful.

Appraisal

9. The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the Appellant. The Council need not go to great lengths to show that the use and/or operations specified in the application are, or are not, lawful 4. The test of the evidence is ‘on the balance of probability’. The Appellant’s own evidence does not need to be corroborated by independent evidence. If the Council has no evidence of its own, or from others, to contradict or otherwise make the Appellant’s version of events less than probable, there is no good reason to refuse the appeal, provided the Appellant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate 5.

10. Section 193(4) of the 1990 Act provides for a LDC to be issued in respect of all or part of the land specified in the application, and, where the application specifies two or more matters, in respect of all, or some one, or more of them. A lesser area of land may be included 6.

The general dealer’s use

11. The Appellant therefore has to prove, on the balance of probability, that the general dealer’s business use as described in paragraph (i) of the heading above has continued without any material interruption on the appeal site for a period of ten years before the application was made, that is, from or before 31 January 1998.

12. A number of witnesses gave oral evidence to the Inquiry about the dealings they were involved in at the appeal site with Matt McGee and the Appellant over a long period of time. These dealings were mainly to do with the selling of scrap metal and building materials to Matt McGee and the Appellant for cash. Some of the witnesses bought salvaged building materials such as stock bricks and roofing tiles from Matt McGee and the Appellant, also for cash. Given the nature of the dealings, which were variously described by witnesses as ‘perks’ or ‘bunce’ it is not, in my opinion, surprising that there were no written receipts or records.

13. The evidence was that the general dealer’s business use has continued throughout the relevant period with witnesses in written and oral evidence stating that they have, for example, visited the site six or seven times a year

4 Paragraph 8.12 of Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control : Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements 5 Paragraph 8.15 of Circular 10/97 6 Paragraph 8.35 of Circular 10/97

3 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

to trade metal 7 and regularly to sell roofing material 8. Most of this evidence goes back to at least 1990 when the Appellant first became associated with the site. From about 2004 Matt McGee was spending long periods of time in Thailand prior to his final departure in 2006 and taken as a whole, there was very little specific evidence about activities on the site between about 2005 and March 2007 as, for example, Mr Griffin stopped his regular use of the site in 1990; Mr Kennedy appears not to have visited much, if at all, between 2001 and 2007; and Mr Peffers stopped visiting in 2002 but went again in 2007 to buy sleepers. However, there was a considerable body of evidence of people visiting the site to buy or sell scrap metal and/or salvaged building materials, albeit this evidence was neither precise nor specific as to times and dates.

14. There were a number of inconsistencies between the written evidence in the statutory declarations and the oral evidence, such as, Mr Fraser asserts in his statutory declaration that from September 2006 he traded from Yeading Fork Farm on a 50/50 basis with the Appellant in respect of the metals but the Appellant said Mr Fraser was not his partner and Mr Taylor says in his statutory declaration that he called into the yard on most Saturdays in the football season when QPR played at home but in oral evidence he said that he did not go to all home QPR games. There were also some inconsistencies between different witnesses, such as, whether there had been any changes to the site over the years. But given the number of witnesses and the length of time that their evidence covered, it is perhaps unsurprising that there was some inconsistency.

15. The evidence relating to the buying and selling of motor vehicles was even less detailed than that relating to the buying and selling of scrap metal and salvaged building materials. I accept that the Appellant may have sold the occasional commercial vehicle, such as, vans to Mr Howell. But the lack of any documentation in this respect was surprising, particularly as Mr Griffin said that he had bought a vehicle relatively recently in about July 2007. There was a reference in the written evidence to Mr Poulos buying a car for his daughter on one occasion and there was one reference in the evidence with regard to the buying and selling of trailers and trailer parts and the evidence with regard horse boxes was that the trade in these had declined in about 1999.

16. It appeared to me, from the evidence, that the use of the site for dealing in domestic appliances such as washing machines and fridges, and miscellaneous furniture was extremely limited although I accept that such items may have occasionally been bought and sold, or donated by the Appellant for charitable purposes as described by Mr Kennedy.

17. In addition to the general dealer’s business use the site was, and is, also used by the Appellant for his roofing business. Among other things, he stores materials for this business on site; his ladders are kept there; and his hoist for lifting tiles onto the roof is kept there. Some of these items are now kept in the container shown as No.6 on plan TN1 as I saw on my visit. This use was confirmed by Mr Jones in his written and oral evidence and Mr Bennett in his statutory declaration. I consider that in practical terms there was some connection between the roofing business and the general dealer’s business

7 Mr Saunders 8 Mr Le’Mare

4 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

because salvaged roof tiles and other items bought by the Appellant from one of his many contacts were used on occasion in the roofing business.

18. The Council produced a witness statement made by Mr Chambers who is the Council’s Tree Management Officer 9. His statement was made for other proceedings and the copy I have is neither signed nor dated and its contents are somewhat vague as Mr Chambers says that he recollects visiting Yeading Fork Farm in 1999/2000 as result of complaints about trees being cut down. The aerial photographs and photograph H1 10 reveal that the trees had been cut down at about that time. Mr Chambers ‘saw some animals on site, in keeping with a small farm holding activities’ and he recollects that he ‘did not see any activities that would suggest there was any form of commercial activities concerning the sale of scrap materials being carried out on the Land’. A resident of Rose Park Close also refers to the site being a small holding 11 .

19. In 2004 Matt McGee stated in his statutory declaration ‘...to date I have continued uninterrupted by any third party to use and occupy the property by way of paddocks for horses and to run my business of keeping poultry and horses/ponies’ 12 . I appreciate this statutory declaration was made in respect of the application for adverse possession and it may well be that Matt McGee did not consider it in his interests to mention any other use of the land by himself or anyone else. But the omission of any reference to the general dealers business is a matter to which I attach considerable weight.

20. In his statutory declaration Mr Hand is not specific about dates but he says that in passing the farm daily he noticed the sale of chickens, eggs, second hand roofing material and scrap. There is no fence separating the appeal site from the remainder of the land and the totality of the evidence indicates to me that at least up until 2004 the appeal site was used, at least in part, by Matt McGee for horses/ponies and poultry.

21. The Appellant said that the sheds and stables shown as Nos.7, 8 and 9 on plan TN1 in the rear part of the site were used by Matt McGee for the storage of items related to his agricultural use of the land. Apart from the storage of sleepers, there is little evidence that the rear part of the site beyond the dividing fence was used for the general dealer’s business and little or no reference was made to this part of the site in the majority of the written or oral evidence. The evidence relating to the sleepers largely came from Mr Broad and Mr Peffers. Mr Peffers was a Director of Durant’s Construction Ltd and Mr Broad worked for him buying, among other things, sleepers. Mr Broad bought sleepers from the Appellant during the course of this employment from 1985 and 1990. Mr Broad later worked for Grant Rail and he continued to deal with the Appellant in sleepers but he was made redundant in 2002 and he ceased to deal in sleepers.

22. From what I heard and read it seems to me unlikely, as a matter of fact and degree, that the general dealers business use took place on the entirety of the land edged red on plan TN1 at least up until 2006 when Matt McGee left and that it was largely confined to the area up to the dividing fence.

9 Appendix 8 to Mr Volley’s proof 10 Documents 3 and 4 11 Appendix 5 to Mr Volley’s proof 12 Paragraph 20 on page 4 of exhibit SAFO’L 1 to Mr O’Leary’s statutory declaration

5 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

23. Mr Blackie said that there was more variety and ‘stuff’ now on the site than in the past. Taking his evidence into account, together with other evidence from people who visited the site for buying and selling various items, it also seems to me likely that the general dealer’s business use has fluctuated over the years with it becoming more intense in the very recent past, that is, from about March 2007 when the Appellant became the sole owner of Yeading Fork Farm.

24. In general the evidence on behalf of the Appellant was vague and anecdotal about dates and there was little certainty in the assertions about the regularity of visits over the whole ten year period and in particular the written evidence was not precise about dates or observations which I find surprising given that the writers had time to consider their evidence. But given the number of witnesses, both written and oral, who provided evidence that they had visited the appeal site over a number of years for various dealings it seems to me as a matter of fact and degree that a general dealer’s business use has been taking place on part of the appeal site, as part of a mixed use, for a period of ten years.

25. I will exercise my powers under s.193(4) of the 1990 Act to reduce the area of land over which I consider it probable that the general dealer’s use has taken place and I will reduce the items to those that I consider likely to have been consistently traded over that period.

The containers etc

26. It was agreed by the Parties that the eight containers/portacabins/sheds, including the stables, should be considered as buildings, and I will determine the appeal on this basis. Therefore the Appellant has to prove, on the balance of probability, that the operations to install them were substantially complete on or before 31 January 2004.

27. Nearly all of the witnesses for the Appellant referred to a container or containers in which the salvaged metal and other items were stored and a tea hut. It was said that up until about 2001 the container or containers were located underneath the trees that were located just before the fence that divides the appeal site along an approximate north-south line. However, very few of the statutory declarations refer to these trees or the location of the container or containers under them which I find a surprising omission.

28. There was some confusion about the date on which photograph H1 13 was taken but Mr Powell and Mr Young agreed that, from the evidence of the aerial photographs, it must have been taken after 18 June 2000 14 . There are no containers or portacabins shown in that photograph in the locations for which a certificate is being sought.

29. Unfortunately there are no aerial photographs of the site between 2002 and 2007 but Mr Powell’s interpretation of the aerial photographs shows that the sheds and stables shown as Nos.7, 8 and 9 on plan TN1 were on the appeal site in 2001 and thereafter and container No.6 is possibly present in photographs dated 2002. Mr Powell said that he could see containers Nos.2, 3,

13 Documents 3 and 4 14 Document 5 paragraph 22

6 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

5 (with difficulty) and 6; portacabin No.4; and the sheds and stables Nos.7, 8 and 9 in the 2007 photograph. I note, however, that an aerial photograph is ‘a snapshot in time’ 15 and both Mr Jones and Mr Knight, among others, confirmed that lorry bodies, containers and portacabins could be moved around.

30. No.6 is a lorry body that was mentioned in evidence by a number of witnesses; the Appellant said it had been there ‘forever’ but it is not shown in aerial photographs until 2007. At the time of my visit this container appeared to be used by the Appellant for his roofing business as it contained, among other things, the hoist for lifting tiles and the bitumen pot. The use for the roofing business was confirmed by Mr Jones.

31. The Appellant made no mention in his statutory declaration that the containers were all in position by October 2003 as he asserted in his oral evidence. Mr Scarrott visited the site in early March 2007 following complaints to the Council relating to activities on the site. When he visited on 7 March 2007 he noted a portacabin and a green container. He visited again on 8 March 2007 and noticed that a container covered in graffiti had been placed on the site. On 14 March 2007 he saw a crane which appeared to him to have been used to re- locate the portacabin and the container. Mr Scarrott took photographs of what he saw on the different dates 16 .

32. A letter from the Residents of Rose Park Close dated 1 April 2007 17 refers to concerns about recent activities at Yeading Fork Farm and letters from two residents of Rose Park Close 18 refer to activities in February 2007. I accept that no one from Rose Park Close attended the Inquiry or made a statutory declaration but the timing is consistent with what Mr Scarrott saw. There may be good reasons why local residents choose not to become personally involved with appeals of this nature and I consider it likely that if there had been significant activity on the site relating to containers and the stationing of the portacabin before 2007 that local residents would have complained to the Council about the activity.

33. The Appellant said he was not present at the site when the events in March 2007 took place and no evidence was called by him to explain what did occur. The Appellant said that there was a possibility that containers had been moved for the resurfacing.

34. For the reasons given above I am of the opinion that the evidence given by the Appellant and those who supported his case in respect of the siting of the containers/portacabin was not sufficiently precise and unambiguous to establish on the balance of probability that the containers and portacabin had been in the positions shown on plan TN1 as Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for four years prior to the date of the application.

35. There was no evidence that the sheds and stables shown as Nos. 7, 8 and 9 on plan TN1 were used in the general dealer’s business, indeed, the Appellant said that they were used by Matt McGee for the storage of items relating to his

15 Document A - R v Surrey County Council ex parte Bridge Court Holdings etc paragraph 99 16 Documents 6 and 7 17 Appendix 7 to Mr Volley’s proof 18 Appendices 5 and 6 to Mr Volley’s proof

7 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

agricultural use of the land and Matt McGee did not leave until 2006. Therefore their use was neither incidental nor ancillary to the general dealers business use for the relevant period.

The access track

36. In relation to the access track the Appellant has to prove on the balance of probability that the track was substantially completed on or before 31 January 2004.

37. There is no dispute between the Parties that the concrete over the area shown cross-hatched in green on plan TN1 was not laid until March 2007. The witnesses on behalf of the Appellant and the Appellant himself all referred to the track that goes from the entrance to the appeal site on Yeading Lane in a generally straight line to the rear of the site. The track is described as having broken roof tiles, rubble and hardcore added to it periodically. The nature and condition of the track was said to change over time depending on what had been dumped on it by way of such things as rubble and damaged roof tiles. Some witnesses, for example Mr Broad, referred to it as being ‘temporary’. From photograph H1 it appears that a large amount of hardcore was added in about 2000 from the entrance up to a short distance beyond the dividing fence.

38. Mr Powell’s interpretation of the various aerial photographs and the conciliation report of the two airphoto experts 19 were particularly helpful. The experts agreed that that the track and the inset entry gate were clear and obvious in the 18 June 2000 photograph and that the first visible track extending beyond the dividing paddock fence is seen in 2001 or 2002. From that date onwards Mr Powell was able to see the track in the various photographs. There was some concrete around the entrance and the track was made up of a mixture of asphalt and hardcore up to about the location of the dividing fence and hard ground with grass growing through it in the furthest part of the site.

39. Circular 10/97 advises that although it is not possible to define precisely what is meant by the term ‘substantially completed’ what is substantially completed is a matter of fact and degree 20 . A track has a number of meanings in the Concise Oxford Dictionary including ‘a rough path, especially one beaten by use’.

40. Whatever the condition of the track may have been, and I heard that it was not always in good condition, it appears to me likely that it has been used as a track for motor vehicles for some considerable time as can be seen from the aerial photographs and as I heard in evidence. As a matter of fact and degree I consider that the track was substantially completed in that it was used by motor vehicles to gain access to the rear of the site on or before 31 January 2004.

Conclusion

41. For the reasons given above I conclude on the evidence now available that the Council’s deemed refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of Land at Yeading Fork Farm, Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4

19 Document 5 20 Paragraph 2.80

8 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

9DG was well-founded in part and that the appeal should succeed in part. I will exercise accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(3) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Formal Decision

42. I allow the appeal in part, and I attach to this decision a certificate of lawful use or development describing the extent of the existing use and existing operation which I consider to be lawful. Gloria McFarlane

Inspector

9 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr A Blake Counsel, instructed by Mr T North of Tim North & Associates Limited, 17A Reading Road, Pangbourne, Berkshire, RG8 7LR He called

Mr S O’Leary 37 The Drive, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB10 8AF

Mr D Powell Orchard House, 39 Christchurch Road, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1DG

Mr W Kennedy 27 Townsend Way, Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 1TG

Mr P Griffin 8 Drake Close, Westward Ho!, Bideford, EX39 1WA

Mr B Howell 48 West Mead, South Ruislip, Middlesex

Mr M Taylor 5 Almond Close, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 6EB

Mr B Peffers 1a Lea Crescent, Ruislip Gardens, Middx, HA4 6PN

Mr S Blackie 111 Linden Avenue, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 8TZ

Mr T Broad 19 Bartram Close, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB8 3AX

Mr A Friday 2 White Butts Road, South Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 0NB

Mr C Jones 20 Friars Place, Littleport, Ely, CB6 1LG

Mr M Le’Mare 8B Marlborough Parade, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB10 0LR

Mr A Knight 76 Diamond Road, Ruislip, Middx, HA4 0PG

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

Mr M Beard Counsel, Instructed by the Borough Solicitor, London Borough of Hillingdon

He called

Mr S Volley Planning Appeals Manager, London Borough of MSc DipTP MRTPI Hillingdon

Mr T Scarrott Planning Enforcement Officer, London Borough of Hillingdon

10 Appeal Decision APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

Document 1 - Statement of Common Ground

Document 2 - Colour photographs, Appendix 10 to Mr Volley’s proof, submitted by the Council

Document 3 - Photograph H1 referred to in Mr Powell’s proof, submitted by Mr Powell

Document 4 - Enlargement of photograph H1, submitted by the Appellant

Document 5 - Joint report by Mr Powell and Mr Young, submitted by Mr Powell

Document 6 - Witness statement of Mr Scarrott, submitted by the Council

Document 7- Photographs dated March 2007, submitted by Mr Scarrott

Document 8- The Council’s notice of the application being lodged, submitted by the Council

Document 9- Letter from Mr North, dated 7 April 2009, submitted by the Appellant

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL AT THE INQUIRY

Document A - R v Surrey County Council ex parte Bridge Court Holdings Ltd, Weylands Treatment Works Ltd and Peter David Ruse t/a Weybridge Skip Hire CO/4011/1998, submitted by the Appellant

Document B - Closing submissions on behalf of the Council

Document C - Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellant

The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Lawful 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Development 0117 372 6372 email:[email protected]. Certificate gov.uk TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 191 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 1995: ARTICLE 24

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 30 January 2008 the use and operations described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged in black on Plans Nos. 1 and 2 attached to this certificate, were lawful within the meaning of section 191(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reasons:

1) The general dealer’s business use as described in paragraph 1. below has continued without any material interruption as part of a mixed use on the land shown hatched black on Plan No.1 attached to this certificate for a period of ten years before the application was made, that is, from or before 31 January 1998.

2) The access track/roadway shown hatched black on Plan No.2 attached to this certificate was substantially completed on or before 31 January 2004.

Gloria McFarlane Inspector

Date Reference: APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

First Schedule

1. A general dealer’s use, as part of a mixed use, within the land shown hatched black on Plan No.1 attached to this certificate involving salvaged building materials including bricks, roof tiles, plywood, timber sleepers and windows; non-ferrous scrap metal including lead, zinc, copper and aluminium, and miscellaneous furniture and household appliances; together with commercial vehicles including vans and trucks.

2. Operational development by way of the formation of an access track/roadway shown hatched black on Plan No.2 attached to this notice. (For the avoidance of doubt the re-surfacing of the area in concrete shown cross hatched on Plan No.2 attached to this certificate is not included in this certificate).

Second Schedule

Land at Yeading Fork Farm, Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 9DG

IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER

The Planning Inspectorate Plan No.1 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square This is the Plan No.1 referred to in the Temple Quay Lawful Development Certificate dated: Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372 by Gloria McFarlane email:[email protected]. gov.uk LLB(Hons) BA(Hons) Solicitor (Non-practising) Land at: Yeading Fork Farm, Scale: Not to scale Yeading Lane, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 9GD Reference: APP/R5510/X/08/2086101

IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER

The Planning Inspectorate Plan No.2 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square This is the Plan No.2 referred to in the Temple Quay Lawful Development Certificate dated: Bristol BS1 6PN

IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

NOTES

1. This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. It certifies that the use /operations described in the First Schedule taking place on the land specified in the Second Schedule was /were lawful, on the certified date and, thus, was /were not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 1990 Act, on that date.

3. This certificate applies only to the extent of the use /operations described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on the attached plan. Any use /operation which is materially different from that described, or which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority.