My Ref: enf20071004a.htm
Your
Ref; ML/LI Enf No 041015Head
of Development Control
Planning Department
Caradon
District Council
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall PL14 3DZ | | Roger Lovejoy
ELF
Harewood
Calstock
Cornwall
PL18 9SQ
6th November, 2007
|
| | |
ELF
Trust
|
Dear Sue Walters
I
have, today, submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use as
I consider my residence on the land encompassed on the map attached to
your section 330 as being ancillary to the primary mixed uses the land
benefits from.
I have two questions I would like you
to answer regarding this issue:
Firstly, do you acknowledge
that one use can be ancillary to another and that this does not
preclude residence.- In the
Restormel1 case the issue resolved was that of a
caravan, designed for accommodation being put to another use, in this
case storage of feed in support of agricultural activity, and as
agriculture is exempt planning control so is such a use of a caravan.
- In
Hancock2 it was agreed that the residential use
of buildings within an agricultural unit is to be considered as an
agricultural use where the resident is engaged in agricultural
enterprises.
- In the Wealden3
case it was again acknowledged that a caravan's ancillary use may include
the provision of shelter and accommodation for persons in charge of
parts of a farm.
- In Godstone4
the secretary of state had to decide whether a caravan was on land as a direct result
of the farming activities. He noted that - it does not matter, as a point
of principal, whether it is occupied by a farm worker 24 hours a day or
used for occasional shelter.
Secondly
if you agree, that as any use can be ancillary to another, would it not
be fitting for the council to assess my assertion that the
accommodation available to me, whether inside the caravan I currently
possess or any other simple structure I should chose, could be used
ancillary to agriculture and any other lawful use of the land? The
issue is not the style of the structure but the use it is put too, and
this is a matter of fact and degree.
If so will the council give
a proper consideration to the facts of the mixed use of the 42 acres of
land and the ancillary uses thereon, whether inside or outside the
current caravan? If not would you be kind enough to explain why you
disagree with the opinions of the various Inspectors and Judges on this
issue as presented?
In North Wiltshire5
the appellant failed to establish his ancillary use as no evidence was
provided as to the terms of employment regarding the resident of a
caravan. The inspector
could not rule out, given the lack of evidence, that the caravan could
be used largely for personal enjoyment and was not intricately bound to
the alleged equestrian activity. "There was no suggestion that all of Mr. Taylors time was solely devoted to equestrian work associated with the holding" ).
I
respectfully suggest that my full time business on some 42 acres of
bio-diversity management, afforestation, and horticulture does require
some suitable structure for office related work, and storage of
sensitive equipment. That it is used for the comfort of those
people who work on the land from time to time by providing a place of
respite and nourishment does not preclude that the same facility may
also be used on a more permanent basis without there being a material
change in the use of the land and hence no breach of planning
control, let alone any use or operation that "would unacceptably affect public amenities of the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest."6
I
suggest the issue is not that the caravan, being of a residential
design should be moved as it's primary use is as a residence, but that
a) the caravan's primary use is a mixed use where all the uses are
ancillary to the proper management of the land and related business and
that the accommodation offered is minimal and any resident taken up by
that part is also minimal and that it is entirely consistent with
ancillary uses to the primary use of the land.
The question
arises as to how can a genuine residential ancillary element be
separated from the structure used, when the larger part of the
structure's use is not residential and more commonly accepted as being
ancillary to the existing lawful uses.
Yours sincerely
Roger Lovejoy
Notes.
1.
Restormel (Restormel Borough Council v. Secretary of State for the
Environment [1982] J.P.L. 785)
2. Hancock (Hancock v.
Secretary of State for the Environment and Torridge D.C. [1987] J.P.L.
360)
3. Wealden (Wealden D.C. v. Secretary of State
for the Environment and Colin Day [1988] J.P.L 268)
4.
Godstone (Village Green Farm, Godstone)
5. North Wiltshire ( North Wiltshire D.C. v. Secretary of State
for the Environment [1998] J.P.L Feb)
6. PPG 18 (Enforcing Planning Controls)
