Officer's Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:409321}} {{table:409320}}

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The application site is a small parcel of land situated in the Glen Roy valley at the foot of the mountain to the west of Laxey. Glen Roy is a small interspersed rural hamlet. The site is situated on a narrow country lane to the west side of the outside of a sharp bend. The site is surrounded by woodland to the side and rear. At the rear the land rises. There is a neighbouring house, Riverside Cottage, to the other side of the road on the inside of the bend to the east. It is understood that the site once belonged to this property. Otherwise, there are no other dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site.

1. The site comprises an old Nissen hut set within a small curtilage with a parking area at the front accessed directly off the road. The site is relatively small, comprising 0.08 ha. At the time of the planning officer's site visit in the spring, there were two box trucks, two Range Rovers and a loading truck parked at the site. There was no one present and it was not possible to look inside the building.

The Proposal

1. The application seeks a Lawful Development Certificate for the following use:

'Light industrial, workshop, storage, motor repair and business useage'

1. The applicant claims that the use of the land as described above has occurred for at least ten years. Details of the evidence provided with the application is summarised later on in the report. The planning officer met with the applicant in June 2013 with a view to clarifying some of the evidence and to set out the main issues for the application and areas where further evidence is required.

1. The applicant is Mr Martin Perry. He is the current owner of the site having purchased it in September 2012. Mr Perry is currently using the site as the base for his vehicle recovery business and for carrying out commercial and personal repairs to motor vehicles.

1. The site has no planning history whatsoever. However, it is the subject of a current enforcement investigation relating to the alleged running of a business from the site, the storage of vehicles and the carrying out of engineering works to the land (12/00285/COMP). The application has been submitted in response to the investigation.

Consultations

1. Loan Parish Commissioners - recommends refusal:

• The business is totally out of keeping with the rural area of outstanding natural beauty
• It is injurious to the enjoyment of the local amenity by adjoining residents
• The access road, due to its single track nature, was unacceptable for regular use by commercial vehicles
• It has seen documents that tend to rebut the statement that there has been continuous use and also that the site is already being used for the purpose for which this application (not retrospective) is seeking permission.

1. The Planning Authority has received 7 letters from local people:

Owner of Riverside Cottage (opposite the site) - objects to the application:

• Lack of historic use as a business premises - the premises has historically been connected to the Stowell family since 1945. The great grandfather was John Stowell and great uncle was Thomas Henry Stowell ("Harry"). Harry was a handyman and work was carried out at Riverside Cottage, which still has an inspection pit and a forge. A photograph from a 1951 newspaper is submitted which shows a workshop behind the house. The Nissen hut was used for storage and parking, and never commercial vehicle maintenance. The great grandfather and uncle made metal moulds for the concrete posts in the smithy behind the house and the finished posts were stored in the Nissan hut across the road. Following the uncle's death in 1995, the Nissan hut has not been used. Mr Hohmann has never used the premises as described. We purchased the property in 1996. It is accepted that the Nissen hut is suitable for immobile storage rather than business use. Mr Corlett only got the legal rights to the site in 2012. The land was open to anyone to park on at the front, which the public did on many occasions, especially when the rally was on.
• Unsuitability and safety concerns - the site is on a blind bend. The road is extremely steep and narrow. It is prone to blockage. The increase in commercial traffic would be a significant risk to road safety.
• Impact - residents currently enjoy a quiet and safe environment. If we'd known the site

Occupier of The Ark, Baldhoon Road, Lonan - concern about the visual impact of the use in this countryside location. The site is packed full of scrap and vehicles, often spilling onto the road.

Occupier of Ballacowin Farm, Glen Roy - objects to the application. The site is outside the applicant's ownership and extends to the objector's land. The Nissen hut has only ever been used for the storage of materials in connection with the manufacturer of concrete posts. Production ceased in 1947. Motor repairs were carried out by Harry Stowell but these were more of a personal nature. Any commercial activities were carried out at the rear of Riverside Cottage. The site is now mainly used for parking of commercial vehicles used in vehicle recovery services. The site has also been used for the parking of damaged vehicles and a container has been situated next to the Nissen hut. The current uses are far in excess of

anything that previously happened at the site. There are concerns that the hardcore is not included within the application. There are also concerns about drainage and pollution of the river. The affidavits provided with the application are misleading because most activities happened at Riverside Cottage. This is an unsuitable countryside location for a business.

Occupier of Glen Roy Farm - objects to the application. The applicant does not own all the land edged red on the application site. The site notice has not been visible from public view. The application does not include the engineering works required to raise the level of the land or the block work close to the river. Works have been carried out to extend the Nissen hut to the rear. The current use is inappropriate and over intensive use in the countryside. The site looks like a scrap yard. The access lane to the site is narrow and difficult for vehicles to pass on. There is potential for pollution of the river from vehicles. The Nissen hut was originally used for the storage of materials in connection with the production of concrete posts. This was in the 1920s. Harry Stowell used the Nissan hut for the storage of vehicles. It was never used for light industrial, workshop or motor repairs. I have no recollection of Mr Hohmann's claimed restoration of vehicles. There is no mains electricity of water supply to the Nissen hut.

Occupier of Riversdale - objects to the application. They disagree entirely with the statement of Mr Hohmann who claims to have rented the site between 2002 and 2012. Enclosed is a picture from Google Street View dated April 2010. They say that this has been their consistent view since purchasing Riversdale in 1991 (i.e. for 20 years). The site was possibly not used for several years prior to Mr Harry Stowell's retirement in 1981. They have never seen any activity of the sort described in the application since owning Riversdale. Mr Perry's use of the site is visually very ugly and noisy. It is inappropriate for a scenic beauty spot. Road access via Glen Roy is single track and does not lend itself to access and additional parking.

Letter from Ian K Bleasdale (no address given) - recalls the site in the 1960s. The Nissen hut was there but firmly shut up, but would have been because it was a race day.

Assessment

Matters for consideration

1. An application for a Lawful Development Certificate is determined on the basis of legal principles. If a development is to be lawful then the application must demonstrate that the development has occurred for four years or more (in the case of operational development and the erection of a dwelling house) or ten years (in the case of a material change of use or breach of a planning condition). The ten year rule applies in this case because the matter relates to the use of the site and building.
2. The principal test for an application for a Lawful Development Certificate is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the development has been carried out continuously for the given period. The burden of proof rests firmly with the applicant and their evidence must be precise and unambiguous. If the Planning Authority has no evidence of its own to contradict that supplied by the applicant, and provided that the applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous, a Lawful Development Certificate may be issued. It is not necessary for the Planning Authority to corroborate the applicant's evidence.

Summary of the evidence

1. The application is supported by the following evidence:

• Affidavit and written statement from James Keith Corlett (previous owner)
• Affidavit of Robert Kinrade (local person)
• Letter from Mr G Hohmann (previous tenant)

Affidavit of Mr Keith Corlett

1. The affidavit is dated 10 December 2009. Mr Corlett says that he knows and is well acquainted with the site. It was used by his grandfather, Thomas Stowell, from the early 1950s until his death in 1958. From 1958 to 1995, the site was used by Mr Corlett's uncle, Henry Stowell. The site formerly belonged to Glen Roy Farm. Following Henry Stowell's death in 1995, the site was transferred to Mr Corlett's mother, Anna Corlett. Following his mother's death, Mr Corlett became entitled to the site. The affidavit refers to a plan, "JCK-4", however the plan is not appended. Mr Corlett says that the site was used by his grandfather and uncle for 'light industrial, workshop, storage and automotive repair and business useage.' Between the ages of 6 and 10 years old, Mr Corlett recalls seeing concrete posts being manufactured on the site. Mr Corlett's uncle also used the site for parking of motor vehicles that people brought to him for repair, and later for the storage of trees that he felled for people on the island. Mr Corlett was a regular visitor to the site from the age of 11 years old and witnessed the use of the site.

Written statement from Keith Corlett

1. Mr Corlett says that he moved to France in 2004. Prior to this he mainly used the Nissen hut for storage - a residue of his Uncle's goods relating to the previous use as a garage. These included motor spare parts and woodworking equipment. There were also some items from Mr Corlett's home. The statement refers to some photos but these are not included. Mr Corlett says that his Uncle was very well known and that people came to him for repairs. There was a ramp to assist the repair of cars from around the 1970s until just after his uncle's death. Around 1999 a female planning officer visited the site and confirmed that there has been a building there since the 1800s. Mr Corlett says that he also used the Nissen hut to restore a motorbike. He used the premises from time to time to do various repairs to motor vehicles both his own and others. The Government should be aware that possibly the first commercial use of the site was by Mr Corlett's grandfather who manufactured and fitted concrete gate posts. He was employed by the then Forestry Mines and Lands Board.
2. Mr Corlett says that the site was used for commercial purposes by his Uncle as well. The Uncle carried out repairs to motor vehicles, storage of the same and as a garage and workshop for his lorry. The site was an overflow from the joinery and smithy across the road. The only difference now is that the Nissen hut has been split away from the section across the road, and changed ownership. Prior to moving to France, Mr Corlett placed the site on the market. Mr Corlett was contacted by Mr Hohmann who wanted to buy the site. There was an issue with the lease and so the sale was put on hold. Mr Hohmann approached Mr Corlett two years later. Mr Corlett came to an informal arrangement with Mr Hohmann about him using the site. Mr Hohmann indicated that he wanted to use the site for his business. Mr Corlett says that there can be no doubt that the site was used in connection with his Uncle's way of making a living until shortly before his death. Mr Corlett suggests that since the site's early use for the production of concrete posts for the Government, the useage evolved over time to encompass other areas he operated. Mr Corlett says that for most of his living memory going back over 60 years, the site was used in connection with his method of making a living i.e. 'light industrial, workshop, storage and automotive repair and business useage'.

Affidavit of Robert Kinrade

1. The affidavit is dated 30 October 2009. The affidavit refers to an attached plan, "RK-1", however the plan is not included. Mr Kinrade says that he understands that the site has been in the ownership of Mr Corlett and his family for over 35 years. Mr Kinrade knows and is well acquainted with the site, having known it since 1954. Mr Kinrade goes onto to say that since 1955 the site has comprised a parcel of land and Nissen hut. The site was used by Mr Corlett's

grandfather, Thomas Stowell, and his son, Thomas Henry, for 'light industrial, workshop, storage and automotive repair and business useage and also to cast concrete fence posts.' As far as Mr Kinrade is aware, the family have used the site since 1955 without challenge.

Letter from Mr G Hohmann

1. Mr Hohmann first knew of the site in 2004 when it was for sale. He sought to purchase the site from the then owner, Mr Keith Corlett. Mr Hohmann and Mr Corlett agreed an arrangement whereby Mr Hohmann would use the site. Mr Hohmann says that he used the workshop to restore his sports car, service and repair other people's vehicles (which was his work at the time) and use the land beside the workshop for occasional parking of his truck and camper van, and occasionally customer's cars. Mr Hohmann goes on to say that he used the workshop as a storage place for tools in connection with his business. Mr Hohmann used the workshop between 2004 until May 2012. Mr Hohmann was contacted by Mr Corlett who advised him that the site was now available for sale. Mr Hohmann then put Mr Corlett in touch with Mr Martin Perry and '...a sale was completed quite quickly afterwards.'

Additional information from the applicant

1. The applicant provided further information by way of a letter dated 22nd April 2013. Regarding the confusion concerning land ownership, the applicant confirms that they did not have a red pen and the planning officer drew the red line for them. It is inaccurate. They have no interest in encroaching onto anyone else's land. The applicant says that there is animosity between the occupier of Riverside Cottage (who has objected to the application) and the previous owner of the site, Mr Keith Corlett. The site is not used for scrap vehicles. Regarding the width of the road, there are a number of passing places. There are far heavier vehicles also using the road. The road is not frequently used. There has been no obstruction of the highway. The affidavits contradict the objectors' view that there has been no activity in the Nissen Hut since Harry Stowell owned the site. Mr Corlett used the site until he moved to France in 2004. A planning officer visited the site and so the Planning Authority should be aware that the site was being used.
2. In 2004, Mr Hohmann began to use the site to restore and repair his and other people's vehicles. The occupier of Riverside Cottage say that they never saw Mr Hohmann's red sports car at the site - given that Mr Hohmann never mentioned the colour in his statement, how does she know it was red? It is confirmed that there is no water or electricity supply to the site. Nevertheless, this does not prevent mechanical work being carried out there. The site is at no greater risk of causing pollution to the river than neighbouring properties. Contrary to objectors' comments, there are a number of commercial uses in the vicinity of the site including a B\&B, kennels, top spec fencing etc. If the application is refused then this would have a devastating impact on the applicant's business. They say they have a bad back and any employer may be reluctant to employ them. The business is not lucrative enough to afford an industrial estate site. Various photos accompany the letter of large vehicles using the road, other vehicles obstructing the highway and "eyesore" sites.
3. The applicant questions the relationship between the objectors to the application. The applicant wishes to emphasise that they bought the site in good faith. If the application is turned down then the applicant would have to stop working and this could jeopardise the TT and Manx Grand Prix contracts currently held with the Manx Government.
4. The applicant has submitted a number of letters in support of the application:

• Derek Moore of Onchan. He says that he met Keith Corlett at the site in 1998-2000. Mr Corlett helped him with his bike and he noted that Mr Corlett was repairing another in the Nissen Hut

• Ben Wilson of Douglas. In 2007 he took his car to Mr Hohmann at the site. In his opinion, Mr Hohmann was using the site as a commercial workshop.
• Mr and Mrs Hampson of Onchan - they sent their car to a garage workshop on Glen Roy in 2008 where Mr Hohmann replaced the gearbox.
• Peter Fitzpatrick of Douglas - visited the workshop in 2006. The workshop was well kitted out and there was a truck parked outside. He used the workshop himself a few times to repair his car.
• Darren Berry - met Mr Hohmann at the site in 2004 where Mr Hohmann was repairing cars. He was working on his own and other people's cars. The Nissen hut had a good array of tools and parts. The Nissen hut looked unused as it was well overgrown. He recommended a few friends as Mr Hohmann's rates were good and he was happy with the work.
• Mr Norman Moore - took his wife's car to Mr Hohmann's garage on Glen Roy Road in 2008. Suprised by the amount of equipment for such a small place. Since used Mr Hohmann on two more occasions.
• John Bell of Willaston - Mr Hohmann carried out repairs for him in 2008 and 2011. Mr Hohmann was running a commercial business from the site.
• Stewart Moore of Onchan - in 2004/05 took their car for repair at Mr Hohmann's workshop in Glen Roy. He used Mr Hohmann's services a number of times after that. Mr Hohmnan said that he was trying to keep use of the site quiet.
• Jamie Aire - repaired their car in 2010 at the ld Hut Garage at Glen Roy Road. The garage was a 'running business' even if it did not look like it from the outside. Mr Hohmann explained that he was trying to keep the business quiet to avoid any issues with neighbours.
• Robert Hewitt of Douglas - had work carried out to his car in 2011 by Mr Hohmann and his workshop at Glen Roy.
• Tim Healey of Ramsey - in 2006 took his car to Mr Hohmann's workshop at Glen Roy.
• John Wells of Sandygate - took his car to Mr Hohmann for a vehicle re-test in 2010. There were clearly tools and equipment inside the workshop. It was certainly being run on a commercial basis.
• M. Duggan - took their car to Mr Homan at the Nissen Hut on Glen Roy Road in 2004. The interior of the building was kitted out well with all sorts of parts and equipment. Mr Hohmann's rates were reasonable and the workmanship was a good standard. He introduced Mr Hohmann to a number of his friend.
• Tim King of Douglas - took their car for a service to Mr Hohmann in mid 2010. It is clear to them that the premises is a genuine business and being run by a competent mechanic.
• Robyn Nowrie of Douglas - took their car for a service to Mr Hohmann's garage in 2010. They have no doubt that the premises are being run as a business and by someone who is competent.
• Danny Lineham - has regularly run passed the site and has previously seen cars coming and going and that the building was kitted out as a garage. It looked like business premises. They have used the adjacent road for running on for 3 to 4 years and the building appeared to

be used up until the middle of 2012 and then it was vacated until around the November of the same year.

Timeline

1. Going from the evidence that has been provided and from the points clarified by the applicant at the meeting with the planning officer, the following broad timeline emerges.

Period Occupier Use Comment Early 1950s to 1958 Thomas Stowell Light industrial, workshop, storage and car repairs Very limited evidence. Car repairs disputed by objectors 1958 to 1995 Harry Stowell Light industrial, workshop, storage and car repairs Very limited evidence. Car repairs disputed by objectors 1995 to 2004 Keith Corlett Mainly storage, some car repairs Unclear as to the balance and nature of these uses. Dates also unclear 2004 to May 2012 Graham Hohmann Private restoration, commercial car repairs and servicing, parking of vehicles and storage of tools No affidavit or additional evidence such as bills, invoices and rates. Use disputed by objectors November 2013 to present Martin Perry (applicant) Vehicle recovery business, repairs and servicing of vehicles - both private and commercial No formal evidence provided with the application

Analysis of the evidence

1. The key time period for assessing the lawful use of land is normally the ten year period prior to when the planning application was made. In this case, it would be 14th March 2003 to 13th March 2013. However, the Planning Authority may consider whether a lawful use was established before then but was suspended, but not abandoned, during the ten year period.
2. The applicant's evidence refers back to the 1950s when the site was occupied by Mr Thomas Stowell. The description of the use referred to in the application suggests that the site has been used from the 1950s to March 2013, for multi purposes including light industrial, workshop, storage and car repairs. However, the evidence is very limited and much of it is ambiguous and anecdotal. There is no clear description of the various components of the mixed use, their balance, frequency and duration, throughout the period. For example, there is reference to the Nissen hut being used by Mr Thomas Stowell for the storage of concrete posts. However, there is no evidence as to when this took place and for how long, and whether there was any other use of the building at this time.
3. There is no reference to a specific light industrial use ever being carried out from the site, yet this forms a component of the mixed use described in the application. Similarly, reference to "business use" in the description is too general and not sufficiently precise.
4. Mr Corlett's evidence suggests that he used the site from 1995 to 2004 mainly for storage including the storage of tools and equipment belonging to Mr Henry Stowell and some domestic items. However, he goes onto say that he also used the Nissen hut for restoring a motorbike, and carrying out repairs to motor vehicles, both his own and those belonging to others. Once again, there is no reference to the balance of these different uses, their duration and frequency. There is no specific evidence of a business being carried out on the land during this period such as bills, invoices, business rates and so on.
5. Mr Corlett states that his Uncle, Henry Stowell, had also used the site for motor vehicle repairs, storage of vehicles and as a garage and workshop for his lorry. At this time the site was used as an overflow from the joinery and smithy at Riverside Cottage opposite the site. Once again, there is no detailed evidence to support this use of the land and no evidence of a

specific business being carried out during this earlier period. Another criticism is that much of Mr Corlett's evidence is by way of a written statement and not a sworn affidavit and can therefore be given less weight.

1. The evidence suggests that the site was occupied from Mr Hohmann from 2004 to some time in 2012 when it was used for commercial vehicle repairs and servicing. This is supported by the numerous written statements from local people who claim to have taken their vehicles to the site. However, these statements are not sworn affidavits and are directly contradicted by the objections from neighbours who suggest that the site was never used as a business for repairing and services vehicles during this time. There is written statement from Mr Hohmann but this is also not in the form of a sworn affidavit. There is no evidence of bills, invoices, business rates or other similar information that would support the case for a business being carried out during Mr Hohmann's occupation of the site.
2. The evidence from Mr Kinrade lacks detail and is considered both imprecise and ambiguous.
3. It is understood that Mr Hohmann vacated the site in the summer of 2012 and the site was not used until the applicant (Mr Perry) bought the site and took up occupation in November 2013. The applicant has stated that they have used the land since there as a base for their vehicle recovery business, and for the carrying out of repairs and servicing of his own vehicles and those of other people. The applicant parks his recovery lorry at the site as well as a box truck which is only used during the TT as an official recovery vehicle. It is considered that this present use of the site is materially different to the use of the land for vehicle repairs allegedly carried out by Mr Hohmann. For example, the regular comings and goings of a large vehicle recovery lorry, the more or less permanent parking of a box truck at the site combined with some vehicle repairs has a different character - and would have different environmental impacts - compared to the previous uses described by the application. In any event, the applicant has not provided any specific formal evidence of their particular use of the land since November 2012.
4. The applicant has confirmed that the red line site plan is incorrect and includes land outside their ownership - and more importantly outside the planning unit. They have been asked to provided a corrected plan but have failed to do so.
5. It is concluded that a Lawful Development Certificate cannot be granted for the following reasons:

• There is no information or evidence on the balance, intensity, frequency and duration of the different uses referred to in the application description. Much of the evidence is anecdotal. The evidence is both imprecise and unambiguous.
• There is no specific evidence of a light industrial use ever having being carried out on the land despite it forming part of the description referred to in the application.
• The site became physically separated from Riverside Cottage opposite the site in 1995. It is unclear what the extent of the previous planning unit was and what use it had. It is unclear as to whether the subdivision of the planning unit represented a material change in use of the land.
• There is no clarity around how the land was used by Mr Corlett between 1995 and 2004 including the balance, intensity, frequency and duration of the storage, private and commercial car repair uses suggested by Mr Corlett. The dates are also unclear. There is no information on exactly when Mr Corlett vacated the site and what happened during the intervening period before Mr Hohmann occupied it.

• Much of Mr Corlett's evidence is in the form of a written statement and not a sworn affidavit and can therefore be afforded less weight. The written statements from Mr Hohmann and various members of the public who claim to have taken their vehicles to the site for repair similarly carry limited weight. In any event, this evidence is both imprecise and ambiguous.
• There is no evidence of bills, invoices, business rates and other similar evidence to support the contention that a car repair business was carried out at the site.
• There is no demonstration of a continuous use of the land for the ten year period prior to when the application was made (i.e. March 2003 to March 2014. The limited evidence provided with the application suggests that from March 2003 to 2004 the site was used by Mr Corlett mainly for storage purposes. There was then a change of use in 2004 when the site was used for car repairs (albeit directly contradicted by objectors). There was then a further material change of use in November 2012 when its use changed to vehicle recovery, private and commercial vehicle repairs.
• The applicant has confirmed that the red line site plan is incorrect in that it does not accurately reflect their ownership or the planning unit. A corrected site plan has not been submitted.
• The objections from neighbouring residents directly contradict the evidence provided in the application, particularly around the use of the land for car repairs.

1. The applicant has been given opportunity to submit further evidence such as an affidavit from Mr Hohmann; a new affidavit from Mr Corlett clarifying how he used the land and when; and an affidavit from the applicant themselves to confirm their use of the land since November 2012. However, no further evidence has been submitted.

Other matters

1. Other land-use planning issues raised by local people such as the suitability of the access roads, impact on the character and appearance of the area, pollution and residential amenity are not relevant.
2. The effect of refusal of the application on the applicant's business is also not relevant to its consideration - land use planning considerations cannot be taken into account.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the application for a Lawful Development Certificate is refused.

Party Status

1. There is no right of appeal in relation to a Lawful Development Certificate application and there is no requirement to list interested parties.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Certificate of Lawful Use Declined

Date of 15.11.2013

Recommendation:

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval <br> N : Notes attached to conditions <br> R : Reasons for refusal <br> 0 : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The application fails to demonstrate that, on the balance of probabilities, the land has been continuously used for a period of at least ten years for the mixture of uses described in Schedule 1 to this certificate.

In detail, the application has the following deficiencies:

• There is no information or evidence on the balance, intensity, frequency and duration of the different uses referred to in the application description. Much of the evidence is anecdotal. The evidence is both imprecise and unambiguous.
• There is no specific evidence of a light industrial use ever having being carried out on the land despite it forming part of the description referred to in the application.
• The site became physically separated from Riverside Cottage opposite the site in 1995. It is unclear what the extent of the previous planning unit was and what use it had. It is unclear as to whether the subdivision of the planning unit represented a material change in use of the land.
• There is no clarity around how the land was used by Mr Corlett between 1995 and 2004 including the balance, intensity, frequency and duration of the storage, private and commercial car repair uses suggested by Mr Corlett. The dates are also unclear. There is no information on exactly when Mr Corlett vacated the site and what happened during the intervening period before Mr Hohmann occupied it.
• Much of Mr Corlett's evidence is in the form of a written statement and not a sworn affidavit and can therefore be afforded less weight. The written statements from Mr Hohmann and various members of the public who claim to have taken their vehicles to the site for repair similarly carry limited weight. In any event, this evidence is both imprecise and ambiguous.
• There is no evidence of bills, invoices, business rates and other similar evidence to support the contention that a car repair business was carried out at the site.
• There is no demonstration of a continuous use of the land for the ten year period prior to when the application was made (i.e. March 2003 to March 2014. The limited evidence provided with the application suggests that from March 2003 to 2004 the site was used by Mr Corlett mainly for storage purposes. There was then a change of use in 2004 when the site was used for car repairs (albeit directly contradicted by objectors). There was then a further material change of use in November 2012 when its use changed to vehicle recovery, private and commercial vehicle repairs.
• The applicant has confirmed that the red line site plan is incorrect in that it does not accurately reflect their ownership or the planning unit. A corrected site plan has not been submitted.