9) Grey Thatch

21/01859/ELD | lawful development certificate for land south of existing dwelling used as a residential garden for more than 10 years. | Land South Of Grey Thatch Harbour Way Chidham PO18 8TG

(9) Land at Gray Thatch, Harbour Way Chidham in the Chichester Harbour AONB

Ref. No: 21/01859/OUT | Received: 13 June 2021 | Validated: 13 June 2021 | Status: Pending Consideration

How to add your comments about this application as a resident:

• Click on the link at the top to go to the planning application on the Chichester Council website
• Have a look at the documents tab (fourth along) and review the application form and site plan
• Have a look at any of the existing comments made about the application (second tab along)
• Also look at the constraints (tab three). This is where you will find things like the Wildlife corridor
• If you wish to comment online then you will need to register with CDC (this is easy and secure)
• Once you have registered with CDC you just login using your unique user name and password

If you are minded to object to this planning application here are points to consider:

• If you are happy to, please print and fill in this form and send it to CDC via post or photo scan and email
• This is a resident who lives in a property whose thatched roof is almost derelict, whose house is poorly maintained, and yet is clearly keen to establish ownership of a garden area adjacent to the house so that, under the NPPF this would then mean it was a ‘Brownfield site’ and could then be able to have planning permission submitted to build one or more houses on the land the owner claims is their ‘garden’
• Anyone who knows this site, use your local knowledge to point out how this is clearly not a garden area that has been used by the current owners for some considerable time, and definitely not 10 years continuously, which is what is required to get the ‘lawful development certificate’ they are seeking and need to then try and put in planning permission for housing development
• The application is an alteration to the previously withdrawn application 20/02886/ELD – 18^th December 2020. The difference being that the applicant has now limited the request for the certificate to apply to the areas that have purportedly been used on a continuous basis as a residential garden and hardstanding (Highlighted in Red), rather than the two fields as in the earlier application (Highlighted in Yellow). Presumably this has been done in the hope that this smaller parcel of land will be less contentious.
• The title of the Application is misleading as the majority of the land involved is actually South of a Public Footpath, not Grey Thatch, and there is another parcel of land called Land to the South of Harbour Way.
• The proposal also states the applicant wishes to re-designate Maurice’s Field (currently agricultural land) to residential garden status. This is in conflict with the application documentation which only mentions part of Maurice’s Field being used as a ‘Kitchen Garden’.
• Maurice’s Field was originally part of Easton Farm and its designation has never been changed from agricultural land. It is completely separate from the domestic property Grey Thatch, being separated physically by a public footpath and as a separate planning unit.
• The terminology ‘Kitchen Garden’ is onerous and not one that is recognised in Planning Terms. A more appropriate and legally defined planning term would be allotment, or Field Garden as defined in The Agricultural Act 1947 section 109 (3) and the Allotment Act 1925.
• The new application is for part of Maurice’s Field (LR Title WSX359139), which is now called a Residential Kitchen Garden and hardstanding having been in constant use for more than 10 years and the land is therefore residential garden not agricultural land.  A tenuous claim as no one actually lived in Grey Thatch since the late Mr Dennis Body moved to live with his son in Surrey in late 2016, prior to his death in 2017.
• The property known as Grey Thatch was owned outright by Dennis Body, who resided at Grey Thatch from 1982 until late 2016 when he went to live with his son in Surrey until his death in June 2017.
• Grey Thatch was unoccupied from late 2016 to late November 2019 when the current owners purchased the property. During this time the area of land referred to was not continuously cultivated or tended and could not have been providing vegetables grown for household use as there was no household inoccupation.
• It should be noted that there has been a kitchen garden situate within the domestic curtilage of Grey Thatch (located at the west end of the garden, where it abuts Rithe House) during the time the property was owned by Dennis Body.
• The new owners have been in possession of the Grey Thatch property, Maurice’s Field and the field described as the Land to the South of Harbour Way for 19 months. It is not their main residence but a second home. In this time there has been a global pandemic in last 15 months during which for at least 6 months of which travel to a second home has been precluded, so unless picking of vegetables for friends and family can be categorised as essential maintenance it is difficult to see how a Kitchen Garden could have been in constant use.
• . Christopher Body’s Statutory Declaration merely attests to the fact that vegetables were grown in Maurice’s field by his parents during their tenure, which is permissible on agricultural land.
• The applicant’s agent has presented the information in Mr Christopher Charles Body’s statement in a very misleading manner. Under the heading “Statutory Declaration – Charles Body (Previous Occupier) the next line quotes “Early 1982 – 22nd November 2019”. It should be noted that Christopher Charles Body states that he only resided in Grey Thatch from 1982 to 1984 NOT continuously through to 22nd November 2019 as is implied. HIs period of occupancy is therefore long before the ten-year period and so irrelevant to this ELD claim.
• From 1989 until 22nd November 2019, Maurice’s Field was owned by Mr Christopher Charles Body who has resided in Esher in Surrey from 1997.
• Mr Chris Body’s declaration states that he continued to visit his parents until 2019 when the house was sold. This is not the case as his father died in 2017 and the house was unoccupied from late 2016. He was also an infrequent visitor to Harbour Way as attested to by local residents.
• Given Mr Chris Body resided in Esher and was infrequent visitor to Grey Thatch, it is difficult to understand how he can declare that the gardener parked every week on the hardstanding.
• The Public footpath that separates Maurice’s Field from Grey Thatch precludes this patch from being absorbed into the garden and is presumably why the Local Authority and local residents did not object to it during that time.
• Ken Langley’s Statutory Declaration merely refers to uses that are either agricultural uses that are permissible, (a) growing vegetables & (b) hardstanding or uses that are covered by the 28 day rule. None of these gives rise to grounds for issuing an Existing Lawful Development Certificate.
• Marcus Evans’ Statutory Declaration is somewhat surprising for someone who does not reside at the property, especially given the fact that for most of his tenure we have been in a pandemic with all the attendant restrictions on travel and socialising that this has meant. Additionally, it is difficult to see how they or their friends can have made use of the vegetables grown when their ability to travel was severely restricted.
• Since November 2019, the current owners have only visited Grey Thatch on an occasional basis and are not permanently residing there. How they can declare that the hardstanding has been used for parking on average once a week by visitors at least once a week is simply untrue, as they have not been staying at Grey Thatch on average once a week.
• Grey Thatch in its existing state has extensive gardens and outstanding views. To enlarge this onto historic agricultural land would not only create a precedent for the whole Harbour and AONB it would deprive walkers and the general public who use the adjacent Public Footpath between Grey Thatch garden and Land South of Grey Thatch of views of the Harbour and the South Downs that they have enjoyed historically, as it would inevitably lead to development of a further parcel of the foreshore.
• The existing footpath was positioned where it was as it was the boundary between the agricultural land and the residential land.
• The Google aerial maps, dated from 2001 -2019 show very little cultivation of the vegetable bed. In the period 2017-2019 the cultivated bed was left untended or fallow. If crops were grown they were done is intermittently and and certainly not continuously.
•  The Google Earth photographs provided as supporting historical evidence do not show any boats, vehicles or tents etc. As such they only go to show that if they ever existed they were of a temporary nature.
• The Gardener’s Statutory Declaration is factually incorrect, as he has not parked on the hardstanding every week, but parks there very infrequently, preferring to park on the driveway of Grey Thatch or on the roundabout between the entrance way to Grey Thatch and the public footpath.
• The fact that the hardstanding was used to park a boat and trailer temporarily is immaterial as this ceased nine years ago.
• A hard standing does not constitute, in any way, a change of use as residential garden any more than it does for a farmer to regularly store vehicles or other equipment on their land for short periods of time.
• With no one permanently resident at the property since late 2016, use of the hard standing has been very infrequent indeed. There is ample parking on the driveway of Grey Thatch which is where visitors park.
• If the application does not seek a change of use or permission for any development on the site, it brings into question the reason why the application is necessary.
• The location is right at the heart of the AONB, with views across the Harbour and sitting opposite Bosham and the National Trust’s Quay Meadow. Any application which could lead this site being developed by the erection of any structure should be strongly opposed to preserve the sensitivity and unique nature of the setting and to avoid setting a precedent.
• If the application is successful in changing the use classification further development is almost certainly guaranteed. Other permitted development rights would also present themselves. This would be of great concern regarding the impact on local residents and the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
• As a residential garden, personal chattels such as a Mobile Home (five-bedroom 65′ x 22′ twin unit) would be allowed on the site (The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) without the need for planning permission. CDC, Chichester Harbour Conservancy, etc. would be powerless to stop this and an avalanche of similar examples would no doubt follow within both the AONB and South Downs National Park
• Maurice’s Filed has a separate title and is separated from Grey Thatch by a private road and well used public footpath. It is not directly connected to Grey Thatch or its garden and by being completely independently fenced/hedged and gated is clearly defined as a separate plot of land.
• The application is clearly intended to assist in the future development of Maurice’s Field and therefore should be carefully considered on merit and fact.

If you don’t want to register on the CDC website you can email your comment to:

dcplanningshared@chichester.gov.uk

Please make sure that you put the correct number for the planning application.

To view all Chichester District Parish planning applications click here

Identification of housing sites within the latest CDC published HELAA does not imply the Council will grant planning permission for residential development.