Agenda item

The SPO-JP introduced the report to Members and noted the ward should read ‘Swafield and Bradfield’ rather than ‘Trunch’. He added that the application was for a Certificate of Lawfulness, and the determination would be based on evidence submitted rather than planning policy.

Public Speakers

Elaine Pugh – Clerk, Swafield and Bradfield Parish Council

Questions and Discussion

1. At the request of the Chairman, the PL explained the term ‘Certificate of Lawfulness’. The PL relayed Planning Policy guidance and advised the application was not for planning permission and would not take into account whether a development should be granted, rather it was a consideration of evidence to determine whether  the application was lawful in planning terms.

2. Cllr J Toye sought clarification on how long an absence was considered to be in a planning context, and what the current and future use of the Caravan would be. The PL advised that a period of absence in planning terms would be a substantial and continuous period of time, though any sustained break would reset this period. The SPO-JP referred Members to the Report which detailed the Caravan’s use for tending a small holding.

3. Cllr J Toye enquired whether there would be any restrictions which would legally prohibit the Caravan from being used for residential purposes in the future. The ADP affirmed that information provided to the Council suggested that the Caravan provided shelter to those who worked the area and was not proposed to be of residential use. If occupied permanently for residential use, this would constitute an Enforcement investigation.

4. The PL advised a change of use to residential would constitute a material change of use, and would therefore require planning permission or be subject to enforcement action.

5. Cllr J Toye noted that he had surveyed satellite imagery of the site and a Caravan had seemingly been located on the land since 2006. As the Caravan has been in situ in excess 10 years, Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation. 

6. Cllr N Pearce raised concerns that the Parish Council had disputed the legality of the Caravan over the last 10 years, and that these enquires may not have been addressed. The ADP advised each application should be determined on its material merits. Whether or not the Council had failed through its Enforcement Team to address concerns relating to the use of land, was a separate matter. Members should consider whether the Caravan had been in situ for 10 years based on material facts, or if there was evidence to dispute this.

7. Cllr A Brown sought clarification on whether officers were aware of any planning enforcement action that would have interrupted the period of continuous use. The SPO-JP advised he was not aware of any such action. Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal to accept the Officers recommendation.

8. Cllr V Holiday questioned the validity of evidence provided,  and suggested that Exhibits C-K formed indirect rather than direct evidence, proving the land was used for agricultural purposes, as opposed to verifying the presence of a Caravan. She commented that a Caravan had been observed on the site, but not continuously.

9. The SPO-JP established that the primary evidence supplied was the signed Statutory Declaration in conjunction with the aerial photographs taken over a 10 year period. The secondary evidence adding weight to the evidence provided.

10. The ADP acknowledged that officers were satisfied with the evidence supplied showing that a Caravan had been sited as a requirement for the management of the land to have a shelter. He added that if the land was used for agriculture, the evidence would support this as an ancillary element.

11. The Chairman enquired if the Caravan could be used for residential purposes. The ADP relayed that the application was largely predicated on the basis of the Caravan being cited for use as a field shelter. This was supported by the SPO-JP, who advised the Caravan was utilised as a field shelter to service the small holding. The  ADP noted that an informative could be added to the decision stipulating the Caravan be used as a shelter for amenity purposes and not for residential use.

  xii.        Cllr T Adams asked whether the applicant could apply for planning permission for an additional Caravan. The PL advised this would be at the discretion of the applicant, though they would be unable to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate without the suitable period of continuous breach of planning control. Cllr T Adams enquired whether changes to the field, to the exact location of the Caravan, and the Caravan itself, would form material considerations. The ADP advised that replacement or upgrading of the Caravan would not be a material consideration. He added that caravans had a limited lifespan and it was reasonable to expect replacement due to degradation. It was noted that evidence suggested the use the Caravan had been consistent ever the 10 year period, and Officers considered replacement of the Caravan to be reasonable.

 xiii.        Cllr J Rest, sought clarification on whether the Caravan itself was new, or whether it was new to the site, in addition to the reasonable life expectancy for a Caravan. The ADP replied that the application was for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the arrangement of a Caravan on the site as an amenity shelter, and should that structure require replacement overtime, under tests of reasonableness this would be permissible. He added that the use of land remained the crux of the issue, rather than the condition of the Caravan.

14. Cllr T Adams raised concerns that the Parish Council had not received adequate notification of the meeting, and whether a deferral would be appropriate. The Chairman noted that the Parish Council had made a representation at the meeting, and that other evidence had been brought forward. The Chairman permitted discussion on this Item to continue.

15. Cllr R Kershaw determined on evidence supplied, a Caravan had been located on the site for the required period. He suggested the removal of the word ‘residential’ from the officer’s recommendation.

16. Cllr J Toye proposed the amendment to his original proposition, seconded by Cllr A Brown, to include an informative that a Caravan located on the site be used for amenity purposes for shelter only, and not for residential use.

RESOLVED by 9 votes for, and 3 against.

To grant the Certificate of Lawful Development for the existing use of land for stationing of a Caravan for amenity purposes for shelter.