I have been an enforcement officer for 16 years but as the saying
goes you learn something new every day.
I served an enforcement notice on land that was formally within the
red line of a quarry permission but had a dwelling built on it in the
1920's. In 2011 the quarry was sold to another operator and the land
with the house on was retained by the former quarry owners, this land
was registered at that point separating it from the quarry, this
parcel of land formed the red line of the enforcement notice.
Up until 2003 the land with the house was self contained screened
from the quarry by trees and lawn was laid. In 2003 bays were
constructed and these were used to store "won" mineral from
either the quarry or by importation, there may have been some small
scale processing by grading taking place but on a small possibly
ancillary scale. Post 2011 the site was used increasingly used to
process construction and demolition material for resale as reclaimed aggregate.
This was investigated by my predecessor and I served an
enforcement notice in 2018. The landowner made a CLUED application to
the district and appealed my notice (as a county matter) then when the
CLUED was refused appealed that.
We have received the result of the CLUED appeal which has granted an
LDC based on the fact that importation storage and processing had
taken place from, in the inspectors opinion, no later than 2005 and
therefore a certificate should be granted.
The fact the inspector agrees that a new planing unit was created in
2011 but this has not created a new chapter in the planing history has
been a learning experience. I presume as there has not been any new
planing permissions on the land since 2011 Pioneer Aggregates would
not apply ?
Any thoughts ??
This is an interesting question... I see no-one responded with any
thoughts, and this was some time ago. Did you come upon any answers to
that interesting point...
If I have understood correctly, the once owned quarry site had become
two new planning units. One of which is now under new ownership. It is
the planning unit with a new owner that I believe is where a new
chapter starts with planning history. I'm no expert, just interested
and well researched in this subject!
My situation right now is on a very much smaller scale, but it has
created two planning units. One remains as the main dwelling with a
garden, the other just garden with a shed, under a new
ownership. Does it lose it's 'use', to be used as a garden?
If the land was sold without a CLUED or an approved planning
application in place then separating the fenced off area from the
original house and its curtilage would be a material change of use of
land requiring planning permission.
This brings us back to my reasoning that when the property was sold
off from the quarry land a new chapter in planning history commenced
and the time limit clock restarted. The inspector seems to have taken
the view that a use, that commenced prior to the creation of the two
sperate planning units, immunity runs from when that use commenced and
the subdivision had no effect. Would have been interesting to see this
appealed by the district to establish some case law but there was no
apatite for this