Conditions / Refusal Reasons
The available evidence, on balance of probability, supports the owners' claim that the gates and pillars (shown coloured green on the attached plan), which were required to be removed by an Enforcement Notice SE18/159(B) issued on 19 June 2019, were present on the land for more than 4 years prior to the issuing of the above Enforcement Notice. The gates and pillars were therefore immune from enforcement action under section 171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act ('the Act') at the time that the Enforcement Notice was issued; and therefore must be regarded as lawful within the meaning of section 191 of the Act.
The available evidence, on balance of probability, does not support the owners' claim that the use of the outbuilding (shown edged blue on the attached plan) or its identified garden area (shown edged red on the attached plan) were used as a separate dwellinghouse for a period of 4 years or more prior to the issuing of Enforcement Notice SE18/159(A) on 19 June 2019, which required the above use to stop. The unauthorised use was not therefore immune from enforcement action under section 171B(2) of the Act at the time that Enforcement Notice was issued; and therefore cannot be regarded as lawful within the meaning of section 191 of the Act. The information submitted by the owners is not sufficiently precise and unambiguous to warrant the grant of a certificate of lawfulness. The owners' account of events is also contradicted by evidence from other sources that renders the owners' account less than probable.
That available evidence, on balance of probability, does not support the owners' claim that the hardstanding area (shown cross hatched orange on the attached plan) benefit from permitted development rights under Class F, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order at the time that it was formed. Specifically, the hardstanding area was formed in or around January to March 2018 for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the occupiers of the outbuilding (shown edged blue on the attached plan) as a separate dwelling from the main house. The use of the outbuilding as a dwellinghouse was not lawful at the time for the reason stated in (2) above and at the time of its formation the hardstanding was not within a recognised curtilage of the dwellinghouse that it was intended to serve. Furthermore, the hardstanding was formed less than 4 years prior to the issuing of an Enforcement Notice SE18/159(B) on 19 June 2019 that requires the hardstanding to be removed. The hardstanding, including both those parts replaced and those parts newly formed, cannot therefore be regarded as lawful within the meaning section 191 of the Act.
(Show Map - opens in new window)
