GRAVESHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) APPEAL BY Mr Richard Petrucci against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council to issue an enforcement notice on 13 August 2012 relating to the unauthorised material change of use of the land from nil use to a residential use through the use of a detached building for residential purposes and the use of a further building for purposes ancillary to the residential use at Woodlands, Rhododendron Avenue, Meopham, Gravesend, Kent, DA13 0TT Please note that this document and any other documents referred to herein, together with the local Planning Authority’s questionnaire, are available for inspection at the offices of the Planning and Regeneration Department of Gravesham Borough Council during normal office hours (0900 to 1700 on Mondays to Fridays except Public Holidays). Planning and Regeneration Department can be found at Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent, DA12 1AU. Planning Inspectorate Reference. No: APP/K2230/C/12/2183315 Gravesham Borough CouncilEnforcement Ref. No: 11/00336/EN Gravesham Borough Council Appeal Reference No: 2012/00034/ENF PROOF OF EVIDENCE BY SIKDEEP COYLE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 I haveGravesham been employed by Gravesham Borough Borough Council asCouncil an Enforcement Officer within Planning Department since 13 December 2004, and was appointed as the Senior Enforcement Officer on 1 January 2009. My duties involve investigating breaches of planning control under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). I have become familiar with the Culverstone Valley Area through dealing with a variety of planning issues, enforcement issues, enforcement action and associated appeals over the past 8 years. 1 of 24 2. ADMINISTRATION 2.1 In this proof of evidence I will set out the procedural history of relevance to Ground D, a chronology of the material dates, and a full analysis of all of the evidence obtained by the Local Planning Authority in relation to the ground ‘d’ appeal. I will also address matters that arise from the ground ‘f’ and ‘g’ appeals. Richard Hart will address the ground ‘a’ appeal as part of his proof. 3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3.1 It is prudent to mention from the outset that the appellant submitted to the Local Planning Authority a Lawful Development Certificate on 12 October 2011 with a determination date of 7 December 2011. The application was allocated to Planning Officer Kelly Joyce who has extensive experience dealing with Lawful Development Certificates and is very familiar with the Culverstone Valley Area. Following procedural inquires and communication with the then appointed agent, the application was revalidated which provided a new 8 week date of 7 February 2012. 3.2 A draft decision was prepared on 27 February 2012 by Kelly Joyce recommending that the application be refused and this decision was due to be signed off under delegated powers by the Service Manager, Development Management. However, on the same day the Council received notification of an appeal (APP/K2230/X/12/2171300) against non-determination from the Planning Inspectorate and could not therefore issue a decision notice.As Kelly Joyce works on a part time basis the case was taken over by me as not only have I visited the appeal site but I have extensive knowledge on the Culverstone Valley Area and have previously prepared evidence for public inquiries. 3.3 As part of the Lawful Development Certificate Application (LDC Application) the appellant provided two witness statements produced by Frederick Sewell which can be found at Appendix 7 and the appellant himself, which can be found at Appendix 11. The Local Planning Authority carried out its own research and investigations in responseGravesham to the LDC Application. Borough Council 3.4 The relevant four year period for consideration in the ground ‘d’ appeal is from 13 August 2008 to 13 August 2012, the latter being the date that the Enforcement Notice was served. The burden of proof is firmly on the appellant to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that building A has been used continuously as a single dwellinghouse for at least four years prior to the date on which the notice was issued and that building B has been used continuously for purposes ancillary to building A 2 of 24 for at least four years prior to the date on which the notice was served(Section 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). However, as the evidence presentedas part of the LDC Application also refers to the use of appeal site between 2001 until present, my proof of evidence will also cover the period from 2001 to present. 4. GROUND ‘D’ Summary of Council’s Case on Ground D 4.1 The breach of planning control alleged in the notice is as follows: Without planning permission the unauthorised material change of use of the land from nil use to a residential use through the use of a detached building sited in the position marked A on the attached plan for residential purposes and the use of a building sited in the position marked B on the attached plan for purposes ancillary to residential use. 4.2 The requirements of the notice are as follows: a. Cease using the land and the buildings marked A and B on the attached plan for residential purposes; b. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all fixtures, fittings and plumbing from the kitchen; c. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all white goods (including but not limited to the cooker and washing machine); d. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all fixtures, fittings and plumbing from the bathroom/shower room; e. Remove from the building marked A on the attached plan all residential furniture, including but not limited to the bed and sofa; f. Remove from the building marked B on the attached plan all residential furniture and paraphernalia; g. Remove all debris and materials resulting from compliance with steps a to f above. 4.3 TheGravesham time of compliance with the enforcement Borough notice is four Councilmonths. 4.4 The Local Planning Authority will demonstrate that Building A has not been used continuously for residential purposes for the four year period prior to the date the Enforcement Notice was served. 3 of 24 4.5 Secondly the Local Planning Authority will demonstrate that Building B has not been used continuously for purposes ancillary to the residential use of building A for the four year period prior to the date the Enforcement Notice was served. 4.6 The appellant in his statement of case provides no detail of the case he proposes to put forward at the inquiry other than suggesting that he may call upon evidence from three individuals namely, Mr F Sewell, Ms B Palmer and himself. Furthermore the statement of case suggests that the appellant has no evidence which would demonstrate that on the balance of probability that the appeal site is immune from enforcement action. Evidence 4.7 In this section of my proof of evidence I will set out the evidence submitted by the appellant and that gathered by the Local Planning Authority with regard to the use of the appeal site. The evidence when viewed either individually or collectively suggests that there is no credible or reliable evidence to demonstrate that on the balance of probability the residential use has been continuous in the relevant four year period. 4.8 In order to present the evidence in a logical manner my evidence is being dealt with on a thematic basis which is as follows:- Council Tax Electoral Register Site Visits Planning Contravention Notice Lawful Development Certificate Application Evidence from Kent Police Neighbours Comments Electric Consumption Water Consumption 4.9 I have studied the key dates subject to this appeal which I present, in the table below in chronological order with a summary for the assistance of the Inspector. Date/PeriodGraveshamEvent Borough AnalyCouncilsis 02 August 2001 Original chalet burnt down Appendix 4 and plot created with surplus land. 30 November 2000 - 05 Frederick Sewell and This is for information. September 2002 Barbara Palmer liability at Muddy Paws 05 October 2002 – 15 Frederick Sewell registered This is for information. 4 of 24 July 2005 as living at 53 Truman Drive, East Sussex September 2006 Frederick Sewell claims that Appendix 7. No date has he built the residential cabin been given as to when the and occupied the cabin to cabin was built. There is live in. no evidence that this was indeed the case. 06 July 2007 Officer’s conduct site visit The officer suggests from the photographs taken that building A was under construction at the time of this visit, therefore this casts doubt on the accuracy of Frederick Sewell’s statement in which he claims he began living there in Sept 2006. 10 October 2005 – 17 Frederick Sewell is recorded This directly contradicts January 2007 as living at 49 Beechwood the statement contained in Drive Appendix 7 and places grave doubt on the accuracy of the evidence given. Additionally Frederick Sewell on his statement provides his present address as 12 Stanstead Road, Caterham. However Tandridge District Council (Appendix 43) have no record of his residence at that address which further undermines the accuracy of his statement. 08 July 2010 The appellant purchases the Appendix 6. appeal site 23 September 2010 Officer’s conduct site visit Richard Petrucci states that he did not know what the buildings were previously being used for. He made no suggestion that he knew the previous occupants. The building was virtually empty. No evidence of residential use Gravesham Borough AppendixCouncil 12. Appellant now claims that at the time of this visit a Mr Edwards was living there.