Application for a certificate of lawfulness for the use of building for light industrial, workshop, storage, motor repair and business usage

Refusal Reasons

• ✗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 2013). 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.