No replies to this topic

[RichardD]

Sadly it has come to pass that this forum has been dying a death for some years now. Anyone 'blindly' following the advice in David Acreman's book (not all bad, but somewhat naive) will be in for a rude awakening) - And here I'm talking about the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) particularly as regarding Agricultural permitted development to 'build a barn' develop your farm and live happily ever after... which ain't going to happen.

 

Appeal Decisions

Site visit made on 28 January 2014

by Clive Kirkbride BA(Hons) DipTP MSc

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 7 February 2014

Appeal Refs: APP/D0840/C/13/2201740, 2201741, 2201742 & 2201752 Land at Tala Water Fields, East Curry Farm, Boyton, Launceston, PL15 8NS

• The appeals are made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
• The appeals are made by Mr P G E Langley-May, Mrs A M Langley-May, Miss G E May and Mrs A M Morton-Roach against an enforcement notice issued by Cornwall Council.
• The Council's reference is EN11/00363.
• The notice was issued on 17 June 2013.
• The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the change of use of the land for the mixed use of agriculture and the stationing of two caravans for residential accommodation.
• The requirements of the notice are to:

a   Stop the use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes;

b   Remove from the land the caravans;

c   Remove all hard standing, block works, piers, septic tank, gas bottles and generators from the land.

• The period for compliance with the requirements is six months.
• The appeals are proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)© of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Decisions

1. The enforcement notice is varied by:deleting requirement a) in its entirety and substituting the requirement to “Cease the use of the land for residential purposes” adding the words “used for residential purposes” at the end of requirement inserting the word “associated” before the words ‘hard standing’ in requirement c).

Subject to these variations the appeals are dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld.

 

Procedural matter - Mrs A M Morton Roach, the appellant named in Appeal 2201752, is a name used for business purposes by Mrs A M Langley-May, the appellant named in Appeal 2201741. I have determined the appeals on the basis that they are made by a single family, the Langley-May family, comprising Mr P G E Langley-May, his wife and their daughter.

 

Background - The notice land consists of a small holding, which the appellants refer to as Tala Orchard, and is accessed off the private lane leading to East Curry Farm. A large polytunnel and an office/packing/storage building have been constructed under the Prior Notification scheme and some work has started (the digging of two trenches) on a machinery and feed storage building approved under the same scheme on 21 December 2010.

Appeal Decisions APP/D0840/C/13/2201740, 2201741, 2201742 & 2201752

1. The agricultural activities taking place on the land are varied and include growing a small crop of turnips, keeping a small number of sheep, pigs and chickens and the polytunnel business which focuses principally on potted shrubs.
2. The appellants are currently living on the land in a large, modern, timber-clad chalet type structure which was brought onto the land in February 2013. As it is not disputed that this structure conforms to the accepted definition of a caravan for planning purposes, I shall refer to it as such. This caravan is sited roughly in the position marked D on the notice plan and is a replacement for a smaller caravan which the appellants had previously been living in. The superstructure of that particular caravan has since been removed from the land leaving only the wheeled chassis which the appellants’ intend reusing as a base for a mobile field structure. The second residential caravan referred to in the notice and shown in position A on the notice plan has also since been removed from the land.
3. There are also two older touring caravans on the land, sited in or about the positions marked B and C on the notice plan. The Council accepts that these are being used for storage purposes ancillary to the agricultural use of the land and they are not subjects of the notice. However, for the sake of clarity, I have varied the requirements of the notice to make it clear that only caravans used for residential purposes are required to be removed from the land.

Reasons

1. Appeals on ground C can only succeed where those matters which are the subject of the allegation do not constitute a breach of planning control, for example because they are permitted development. As with all legal grounds of appeal, the onus of proof, based on the balance of probabilities test, rests with the appellants.
2. The appellants claim that the mobile home brought onto the land is permitted development (PD) by virtue of Class A, Part 5 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (GPDO), by reference to that part of Schedule 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 headed “Building and engineering sites”. The appellants refer to an appeal decision in Lancashire¹ (which, in turn, refers to an earlier appeal decision in Staffordshire²) and claim that the interpretation placed on this part of the GPDO by those inspectors supports their case.
3. The PD rights conferred under this part of the GPDO are qualified by reference to the use being discontinued when the circumstances specified in paragraph A.2 cease to exist and all caravans on the site being removed as soon as reasonably practicable. A.2 states that the circumstances mentioned in Class A are those specified in paragraphs 2 to 10 of Schedule 1 to the 1960 Act (cases where a site licence is not required).
4. The particular paragraph relied upon by the appellants is paragraph 9 “Building and engineering sites” which states that permission is granted for the use as a caravan site of land which forms part of, or adjoins, land on which building or engineering operations are being carried out, if that use is for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations; these operations must have planning permission, if it is required.

¹ Appeal Ref: APP/U2370/C/11/2152817

² Appeal Ref: APP/B3438/C/08/2065337

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate           2

Appeal Decisions APP/D0840/C/13/2201740, 2201741, 2201742 & 2201752

1. There may well be nothing to explain the purpose or intention behind this ‘permission’ and no case law to assist in its interpretation, as previous inspectors have noted. However, a caravan site is defined by paragraph (4) of section 1 of the 1960 Act as land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed.
2. There is no dispute that the appeal site is an agricultural small holding; it is not a caravan site. The matter before me, therefore, is not whether a site licence under the 1960 Act is required, which is what Part 5 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO is concerned with, but whether the appellants enjoy rights conferred by the GPDO to enable them to occupy their small holding for residential purposes while they construct their approved agricultural building.
3. However, if Part 5 PD rights were applicable to their appeals, I have no reason to disagree with previous inspectors, that, in order to permit such a departure from normal planning control, the “employment” must sensibly involve a significant commitment to, and continuity in carrying out, the operations in question. The building operation which the appellants claim to be currently engaged in is the construction of the approved machinery and feedstore building. Over three years on from this being approved, the only sign of any construction work is some trenching work on two of the four sides of the proposed building, presumably for footings.
4. In my opinion, such a low level of building activity over a period of three years or so does not amount to evidence that the appellants are “employed” in the building’s construction, given that this ought to be a relatively straight forward operation normally measured in a timescale of months not years.
5. The appellants admit that progress has been slower than they would have liked, and I note the reasons given. However, the Council is concerned that the appellants, in effect, are using this as a pretext for living on the land whilst running their agricultural enterprise for which planning permission has neither been sought nor granted. I share those concerns and note, for example, that the appellants give the notice land as their address, with the one given for Mrs A M Morton-Roach (Appeal 2201752) being for correspondence purposes only. This is significant insofar as it would appear that the appellants have nowhere else to live other than the appeal site.
6. I also consider that the replacement residential caravan, which was brought onto the land less than a year ago, is of such a standard as to lend it the appearance of a permanent not a temporary fixture. Certainly, it is far removed from the simple, static residential caravan commonly found on construction sites which would be removed at the end of building operations; for example, someone building a new dwelling on a plot of land and living on site in a caravan whilst doing so.
7. From the evidence before me I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the matters alleged in the notice do not amount to permitted development by virtue of Class A, Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO as argued. Therefore, the appeals fail.

C.S.Kirkbride

INSPECTOR