| CODE            |  No.        |
|-----------------|-------------|
| NP/SM/0609/0463 |             |
| P.FILE          | No.         |
| GRID            | REF399961   |
| 1               | 362351      |
| PLANNING        |             |
| OFFICER         |             |
| APPLICANT       |             |
| c/oAGENT        |             |
| Clare           | Palmer      |
| MsA             | Harvey      |
| FBC             | Manby       |
| RECEIVED        |             |
| Hankelow        | View        |
| AT              | PDNPA       |
| Brine           | Pits        |
| 05/06/2009      |             |
| Coole           | Pilate      |
| Nantwich        | Telford     |
| DATE            | VALID       |
| Cheshire        |             |
| Shropshire      |             |
| 11/06/2009      |             |
| CW58AX          |             |
| TF34NJ          |             |
| Tel             |             |
| No.             | Tel         |
| 01952292129     |             |
| APPL            |             |
| TYPE            |             |
| LDCP            |             |
| CERTIFICATE     |             |
| PROPOSAL        | Application |
| NR              |             |
| LOCATION        |             |
| Mount           | Pleasant    |
| PROPOSED        |             |
| C3              |             |
| USE             | CLASS       |
| Upper           | Hulme       |
| EXISTING        |             |
| Leek            |             |
| USE             | CLASS       |
| C3              |             |
| PARISH          | Leekfrith   |
| PROPOSED        |             |
| LAND            | USE         |
| ADVERT          | DATE        |
| LAST            | ADVERT      |
| Other           |             |
| EXISTING        |             |
| LAND            | USE         |
| Other           |             |
| .NSTRAINT(S)    | Plot        |
| PREVIOUS        |             |
| APPLICATION     | NO.         |
| TCP3            | DRAFT       |
| CONSULTATIONS   |             |
| DATE            | SENT        |
| DELEGATED       |             |
| No              |             |
| DEEMED          | REFUSAl     |
| DATE            |             |
| 06/08/2009      |             |
| 13              | WEEKS       |
| DATE            |             |
| 10109/2009      |             |
| NEIGHBOUR       | NOT/FICA    |

## Enforcement Record Card

This card should be filed immediately in front of the decision notice which in turn should be in front of a set of approved plans.

The following amendments have been formally agreed by the planning officer since the issue of the decision notice:
The following conditions have been formally complied with since the issue of the decision notice:

## Site Visit Record 337.90M -- Hulme Upright Manning Iji.!I

ARCHITECTS
            TOWN PlANNERS
                              INTERIOR DESIGNERS
                                                 _

Highpoint
Fesdval M
Hanley
Stoko-on-Trent
STI .ISH

Tel: 01782 208600

Emall.ltoke@hum-arch.co.uk

Cllen,

Mrs A. Harvey

Proje..

Existing plans to Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Title Plan as Existing StaUlS
.. As Shown

## Mount Pleasant

LEEK
MANCHESTER
STOKE-ON-TRENT
fax: 01782 206080
NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

Tel: 01629816200
Fax: 01629 816310
E-mail: customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk
Web: www.peakdistrict.gov.uk
Minicom: 01629 816319
Aldern House. Baslow Road. Bakewell. Derbyshire. DE45 IAE
                                                                                        -
                                                                                                                             -

Yourre!:
           NB/AJS/931548/1/Har

Ourrel:
           JLB/P.2465

Date:
           27 August 2009

FBC Manby Bowdler LLP
Routh House
Hall Court
Hall Park Way
TELFORD
TF34NJ

Dear Mr Blackie

## Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) Application For Certificate Of Lawfulness Relating To Mount Pleasant, Upper Hulme, Leek.

Your client's application in respect of the above matter has now been determined by the Authority and refused.

I enclose the refusal letter hereWith, together with a copy of the delegated report for your information.

Should you wish to appeal against the Authority's decision, details of how to do this are given in the refusal letter.

If you have any queries in connection with this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully Mrs J L Birkin Senior Legal Officer Legal Services
•
,.Q
. ,
.... 1.

"•• ,\ "1949-2009
•
N~tiorll!1 Parlo:-'
:Qi', Member ofthe Association ofNational Park Authorities Holder of Council ofEurope *Djploma* •••••
,,~""\l.

~
.

,,;:~.

. D~monds in the umdscapc
..... , Chief Executive: Jim Dixon Chair: Narendra Bajarla CBE Deputy Chair: Trevor Bagshaw Working together for the Peak District National Pari"
·A special environment·A welcoming place at the heart ofthe nation -Vibrant communities and a thriving economy.

# Town &Country Planning Act 1990: Section 192 (As Amended By Section 10 Of The Planning &Compensation Act 1991) Town &Country Planning General Development Procedure Order 1995

To:
MsA Harvey
Code No:
NP/SM/0609/0463
Hankelow View
Brine Pits Lane
Ref:
JLB/P.2465
Coole Pilate
NANTWICH
Date:
27 August 2009
Cheshire
Dear Madam

## Application For Certificate Of Lawful Use Or Development

Your application under the provisions of Section 192(1) of the above mentioned Act, dated 5
June 2009 and received as valid by the Authority on
11 June 2009 has been duly considered.

The application was in respect of a claim fora Certificate of Lawful Development for a proposed use as a dwelling in respect of land at Mount Pleasant, Upper Hulme, Leek as shown edged red on the attached plan ("the Property").

1.
2.
It is considered that the residential use of the Property had, by June 2008, been
abandoned, and that the existing lawful use of Property is a nil use.
Any resumption of the use of the Property for residential purposes would therefore
require planning permission.
You are hereby given Notice that the application is REFUSED for the following reason:-
Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House Baslow Road BAKEWELL
Derbyshire DE41JE
(Address to which all communications should be sent)

## It Is Important That You Should Read The Notes On The Reverse Of This Form Notes Appeals To The Department Of Communities And Local Government (Dclg)

If you are aggrieved by a determination of your local planning authority under Section 192, then you can appeal to the DCLG under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act
1990.

You can submit your appeal online via the Planning Portal website at www.planningportal.gov.uklpcs, or you may submit your appeal using a form which you can get from the Planning Inspectorate (DCLG), The Registry, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Tel: 0117 372 8034 Fax: 0117 372 8782.

Copyrightohltls d..wfng Is vested In rile Architect end It must not be copied or~
reproduced wfrllout cons,,"' F/iu..d dimensions only are to be ""en (rom rills I

## Application For Lawful Use - Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme, Near Leek.

1. Application - for proposed use is the resumption of occupation of a residential.

dwellinghouse. This information is given in para. 1 of the Supporting Information and no description of the application is given in the application form.

## 2. Evidence Submitted With Application 2.1 Applicants' Statement· None

2.2
Documentary evidence -
2.2.1
Document 'A' - Letter from
hich states:-
o
Mount Pleasant wa
amily's home from 1930 uhtil July 2008 when it was
sold upon the death of
who owned it.
o
It was owned by Tattons Silk Mill
and
in 1930.
o
At one time there were 8 members of
family living at Mount Pleasant and
it was a very happy home for many years to come.
o
The
property had
electricity installed in
1963 and the telephone was
connected in the early 1970's
o
ather's garden was very important to him .....vegetables and flowers
were grown.
o
ought Mount Pleasant in the early
to ensure that it would always remain a family home.
o
until
unexpectedly passed away in March 2008.
o
had fond memories of
childhood and adult life at Mount Pleasant,
and the precious time
and this was one of the reasons
id not want to sell it during
lifetime.
o
dies in
maintained the property until
death,
after
s mem
the family helped
look after the place.
o
The thunderbox outdoor 100 was taken down in the 1980's as an internal 100
een installed some time earlier.
o
had the roof repaired, and the chimney pots replaced.
ept the
place tidy and it was carpeted and furnished.
o
roperty was broken into and the fireplace and water geyser were stolen.
had died by then so 'we' repaired the property for
and the break in
was reported to the police.
The property was broken into again on several
further occasions.
o
The rear roof (heavy sandstone flags) was stolen one night in 1995, and the
property fell into a state of disrepair from then onwards due to water ingress
and further vandalism.
o
Mount Pleasant was furnished and carpeted, but these items were stolen or
destroyed by the vandals over the subsequent years.
There was a dressing
table and other items of furniture strewn on the road on one occasion, and .all
the lovely old floor slabs were stolen.
....-
•
It was never
intention for the property to become so run down, and
lways intended for it to be a residential dwelling, but once the roof was
stolen it was impossible for
both financially and practically - with the
security issues - to restore it sufficiently to prevent it falling into a state of
•
was a very proud and single minded
ho would not ask for
help from the family, and kept everything very
had a marked effect on for the rest of life.

could not bear to get rid of the long standing family home M
Pleasant, which held so many happy memories of childhood mily life, and where held on to those memories very dearly, and always considered Mount Pleasant to be family home, albeit in a state of some disrepair in latter years.

•
It seems incredible any question over Mount Pleasant being a home, just becaus was unable to maintain the property due to theft, wanton vandalism, finances and encroaching old age.

2.2.2
Document '8' - Bundle of standard printed letters.
signed by family
members
out reference to family) signed by
standard letters contain the following information:-
•
Mount Pleasant was
d b
who
sadly passed away in
•
lived at Mount Pleasant until
deaths in the
•
After
deaths in the
did attempt to
maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney
stacks, and services were connected to the property. (Comment: this
conflicts with
statement saying electric services connected in
the 1963 and telephone early 1970's).
•
There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to
occupy the property at that time.
•
Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials
stolen ie, stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into disrepair
over the years.
•
y
has never been
used for
any other purpose,
and
intention was always that it couId be occupied as a residential
dwelling.
2.2.3
Document 'C' - Structural Appraisal by aba Consulting carried out for
the Applicant
This document provides information on the structural
condition
of the building
as at 26 May 2009,
including the following
statements:-
•
"The building is an old stone cottage that is currently being renovated.
Various repairs have already been carried out."
•
"Given the age of the building, it is in relatively good condition."
•
".. .the building is of substantial construction notwithstanding the state it was
in prior to *the repair works being undertaken.* H
Comment: The survey is not indicative of the structural condition of the
property in 2008 when purchased by the Applicant. Works of renovation
including a new roof and underpinning the building have been carried
out. These works are currently under investigation by the enforcement
team - see enforcement file.
2.3
Supporting
Submission
from
planning
agent - which
contains the
following information:-
•
Background information on the history of occupation of the dwelling since it
was built in 1844 through to the 1970's when it became vacant.

•
    The agent refers to the letter provided by
                                                                               as to the occupation
    of the property by the
                                                          (Doc.A) stating that it 'confirms the
    details of the historic use of the property,
                                                                    the circumstances of their
    acquisition, the use of the property during their ownership, and the intentions
    of the family in respect of the dwelling. The history of the site clearly indicates
    that neither the use of the dwellinghouse on site, or the use of the land for
    residential purposes has been abandoned. It is the case that the dwelling,
    although used more infrequently in recent years, was intended for use as a
    dwelling by the
                                                          and latterly by the Applicants. The
    applicants also refer to a further letter, produced and signed by various family
    members, including three
                                                             and which confirms that there has
    never been any intention to use the property for any purpose other than a
    residential dwelling. (Doc. B).'
•
    Discussion of case law referred to in support, as follows:-
    Hughes - "The relevant test against which the lawfulness of Mount Pleasant
    should be considered is that set out in the Court of Appeal case of Hughes v
    Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & the Regions and South
    Holland District Council [2000J JPL 826.
                                                              The Court of Appeal considered
    what was the proper test for establishing whether the use of a property
    continued and concluded that the relevant factors to be considered were: i)
    The physical condition of the property; ii) The length of time for which the
    building had not been used for residential purposes; iii) Whether it had been
    used for any other purposes; ivy The owners' intentions having regard for
    what the reasonable man, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances,
    would conclude.
    Phvsical Condition. In older age, the upkeep became more of a task, and
    following
                                        eath,
                                                         found it more difficult to keep the
    property in good repair and secure. The dwellinghouse has been subject, in
    recent years, to vandalism. Part of the roof was stolen in 1995 resulting in
    water ingress and causing further damage.
                                                                    Following
    acquisition of the property
                                              and
                                                                     manage
    property. A structural report is attached marked "C". The works of repair
    recently carried out did not materially affect the external appearance of the
    building and did not,
                                    accordingly, amount to development,
                                                                                         by virtue of
    s55(2)(a) of the Act. The question of physical condition of the property must
    be addressed at today's date. The report shows that it is sound, with only a
    little further structural work being recommended. The other works needed to
    render it habitable would be internal, and again, not such as to amount to
    development.
    Length of time not used / Used for other purposes. Until the
                                                                                                     the
    application property was used as a permanent dwelling by
    From that time until about
                                                  he dwelling was kept in
    occupied by
                                             who used to visit the property regularly to
    maintain it and look after it. The residential use of the property and its garden
    continued
                                                       wnership and it has never been the
    intention o
                                                       the Applicants, to abandon the use of
    the dwelling on site or the land which comprises its curtilage and gardens.
    Certainly there has been no intervening use of the dwelling or of its curtilage
    and garden areas. The period on non-use after 1995 when the roof was
    stolen is not long enough to be material in planning terms.
    Intention.
                                       always retained a keen interest in the property
    which, for
                         rought back many fond memories.
                                                                             visited it regularly and
    despite
                ageing years,
                                     demonstrated a clear intention
                                                                                   to maintain the
    dwellinghouse use.
                                Some attempts were made to carry out works of

   maintenance to the property:
                                     arranged for the outside toilet to be
   demolished and had parts of the roof and chimneys repaired.
                                                                     g a
   break-in at the property,
                                 eported the matter to the police.
                                                                     also
       aged various internal works of maintenance and repair. Notwithstanding
       fforts, the property fell into disrepair, exacerbated by damage caused by
   vandals during the last few years. There has never been a point where the
   owner had an intention contrary to use as a dwelling.
   Hale - Even before the case of Hughes, the intention of parties has been
   considered to be a determinative factor in addressing the continuance of a
   residential use over time. In 1979, the issue was addressed in the case of
   Hale v Lichfield District Council [1979J JPL 425.
                                                 In that instance, Mrs Hale
   had spent the last 13 years of her life in hospital during which time her home
   was entirely left empty and no repairs were carried out. Following her death,
   personal representatives of the estate obtained a declaration to the effect that
   the residential use of the property had not been abandoned due to her clear
  .intention to maintain it as her home. The circumstances in Hale are similar to
   that of Mount Pleasant where it has been the advancing years and personal
   circumstances of the owner which have lead to the property falling into
   disrepair.
•
   The agent claims that "the physical condition of the building does not of itself
   lead to a conclusion of abandonment. The property remains substantially
   complete and there is no need for any element of rebuilding or substantial
   renovation to bring the property up to modern standards for habitation. Whist
   it is not currently occupied as a permanent residence,
                                                         it has remained
   lawfully in residential use, until recently being furnished and looked after. It is
   clear, therefore, that the residential use of the site has not been extinguished.
   Accordingly, the use remains lawful and a reversion to that use would not
   constitute a material change. "

•
    The agent summarises as follows:-
                                                       "The eXisting property on site was
    occupied as a main family residence from at
                                                                                   he late 1970s,
    at which time. it had been purchased by
                                                                                    with the sale
    intention that it remain a residential property in the family ownership. Deeds
    and documents have indicated that the property was in fact used as a family
    residence from its construction in 1844. The present condition of the dwelling
    precludes its use currently,
                                            although the evidence submitted with this
    application makes clear that there has never been any intention to abandon
    the dwellinghouse use. The reason for its state of disrepair is qUite simply
    due to the increased instances of vandalism and break-in during the owner's
    advancing years at a time when it was not used as a daily residence. The
    residential use has neither been abandoned nor extinguished. The use was,
    lawfully, dormant in the context of the case of Panton (R v Secretary of State
    for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Panton (1999) 79 P &
    CR 485).
    The current owners and Applicants purchased the property with the intention
    that it be brought back into habitable use. The Applicants had not considered
    that the previous dwellinghouse use might be considered by the local
    planning authority to be abandoned, given the clear intention of the previous
    owner to maintain the status quo,
                                                      the relatively short period of non-
    occupation, and indeed the previous owner's attempts at carrying out repairs
    to the property despite having lost
                                                                       and
                                                                                     wn old age.
    Applying the test set out in Hughes, it is clear that the residential use has not
    been
            abandoned
                             and that a
                                               reasonable
                                                               man
                                                                       having
                                                                                  regard
                                                                                            for the
    circumstances of the matter would conclude that a residential use remained.
    Accordingly, and on the basis of the supporting evidence, a Certificate of

Lawfulness of Proposed Use should be granted for the resumption of occupation of the dwelling and the residential use of the application site,

| 3.                                                                     | Evidence                       |  on                           |  Planning   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------|
| 3.1                                                                    | Planning File P.2465(1)        |                               |             |
| 5/9/1979                                                               |                                |                               |             |
| Outline application for re-roofing                                     | and                            | restoration of derelict house | at          |
| Roach End Farmhouse - REFUSED.                                         | The committee report describes |                               |             |
| the physical condition of this property                                | in                             |                               |             |
| the same condition                                                     | as                             | that of                       |             |
| Mount Pleasant. This property was considered to                        |                                |                               |             |
| be                                                                     | abandoned.                     |                               |             |
| Various                                                                |                                |                               |             |
| Further correspondence and enquiries relating to the property, but the |                                |                               |             |
| Authority maintained that the residential use had been abandoned.      |                                |                               |             |
16/6/2008
July 2008
| 3.2                                                                    | Planning File P.2465(3)                                              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 10/6/2008                                                              |                                                                      |
| E-Mail to Whittaker                                                    |                                                                      |
| &                                                                      |                                                                      |
| Biggs advising that the officers are concerned                         |                                                                      |
| that the residential                                                   |                                                                      |
| use                                                                    | of the property may have become abandoned,                           |
| which would mean that planning permission would                        | be                                                                   |
| required to repair                                                     |                                                                      |
| and                                                                    | re-occupy the dwelling, that                                         |
| view of policy restrictions, that any claim that the                   | use                                                                  |
| abandoned should                                                       | be                                                                   |
| given formal consideration                                             | by                                                                   |
| the provisions of                                                      |                                                                      |
| an                                                                     | LDC                                                                  |
| recommend that this matter                                             | is                                                                   |
| clarified formally prior                                               | to                                                                   |
| the property, and certainly prior to                                   |                                                                      |
| any                                                                    | works taking place                                                   |
| re-occupy the property.                                                | We                                                                   |
| mail to their sales particulars.                                       |                                                                      |
| Photographic record of condition of property - see below               |                                                                      |
| Copy Property Details from Whittaker                                   |                                                                      |
| &                                                                      |                                                                      |
| Biggs for the sale of Mount                                            |                                                                      |
| Pleasant at auction                                                    |                                                                      |
| on                                                                     | 15                                                                   |
| -                                                                      | That the property sits within sizeable former garden areas extending |
| to either side of the property, with a small garden area to the front  |                                                                      |
| and rear aspects.                                                      |                                                                      |
| -                                                                      | The property                                                         |
| in                                                                     | a poor state of repair with parts                                    |
| been stolen and timbers rotting due                                    | to                                                                   |
| water penetration, only partial                                        |                                                                      |
| first floor accommodation being in situ.                               | .                                                                    |
| -                                                                      | The                                                                  |
| and                                                                    | potential                                                            |
| residentiallholiday                                                    | accommodation,                                                       |
| necessary planning approval.                                           |                                                                      |
| -                                                                      | There are presently                                                  |
| services connected                                                     | to                                                                   |
| electricity was originally connected and there                         | is                                                                   |
| also mains water                                                       | in                                                                   |
| the vicinity and space for septic tank drainage.                       |                                                                      |
| -                                                                      | They understand there                                                |
| is                                                                     | no                                                                   |
| -                                                                      | Guide price £40,000                                                  |
| plus.                                                                  |                                                                      |
| 3.3                                                                    | Planning Enforcement File                                            |
| June 2008                                                              | Photographic record of condition of property (taken                  |
| by                                                                     | CF)                                                                  |
| the building was a shell with                                          |                                                                      |
| no                                                                     | windows, doors, partial front                                        |
| floors, building                                                       | in                                                                   |
| dereliction.                                                           |                                                                      |
| 4/912008                                                               |                                                                      |
| Letter from applicant, stating that she will                           | be                                                                   |
| on                                                                     | the building from 8 September 2008.                                  |
| Pleasant and officers could not contact applicant. Agents requested to |                                                                      |
| ask applicant                                                          | to                                                                   |
| call office.                                                           |                                                                      |
| 8/9/2008                                                               |                                                                      |
| Mr Harvey called office.                                               | CF                                                                   |
| building abandoned and suggested application for LDC                   |                                                                      |
| be                                                                     | submitted.                                                           |
| Mr H advised that                                                      |                                                                      |
| he                                                                     | had                                                                  |
| view never                                                        |  an                                                        |  intention of former owner   |  to                          |  abandon and believes   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------|
| property                                                          |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| to                                                                | be a dwelling                                              | and                          | therefore would benefit from | pd                      |
| 15/9/2008                                                         | Complaint from neighbour that property being worked        |                              |                              |                         |
| on                                                                | - despite his                                              |                              |                              |                         |
| previously being told its planning status was derelict.           |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| 15/9/2009                                                         | Information                                                | from                         |                              |                         |
| The                                                               | Roaches                                                    | Peak                         | District                     | Website                 |
| information                                                       |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| on                                                                | the 'derelict cottage', states people wandered round 'this |                              |                              |                         |
| wreck', and people have offered the owner very tempting sums from |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| time to time but                                                  |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| is                                                                | adamant that the cottage remains                           | as                           | it                           | is.                     |
| sold for £122,000 - with                                          | no                                                         | water, electric or land.     |                              |                         |
| 16/9/2008                                                         | Record                                                     |                              |                              |                         |
| of                                                                | site inspection                                            | by                           | LR                           | with photographic       |
| record. Notably:·                                                 |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| o                                                                 |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| Scaffolding                                                       | had                                                        | been erected                 | and                          | roofer                  |
| had been employed                                                 |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |
| by                                                                | the owners to remove the remains of                        | the                          | old                          |                         |
| roof.                                                             |                                                            |                              |                              |                         |

o
rvices currently to the property.
o
had known previous owner and that
had been approached
in the past by someone wishing to purchase Mount Pleasant, but
had refused as
wanted it to stay as it was.

o
also confirmed that although property bought fo
other
and father, soon after
father became ill and both he and his wife
moved into a nursing home.
23 & 24/9/08 LR tried to contact owner and left message to contact him.
23/09/2008
Office Copy Entries - show Mrs Alison Harvey of Hankelow View, Brine
Pits Lane, Coole Pilate, Nantwich as the owner of the property.
The
price paid on 12 August 2008 was £122,000.00. There is no mortgage
or other charge.
25/9/2008
LR checks with SMDC.
o
Housing section - no record, no grants.
o
Council Tax - not listed

o
Building Control Section - received a complaint in 2005 that the
property was
dangerous.
Officer inspected
but satisfied
not
immediately dangerous.

o
Electoral Register - Property does not appear on register and has
not done so throughout their current records dating back to 1982.
22/10/2008
Complaint from another member of public about recent works taking
place after the Authority's view given prior to the auction. Complainant
advised that matter subject to enforcement investigation.
28/10/2008
Letter to owner following site visit on 2/10/08 attended by her husband,
and PDNPA officers LJR and CF.

o
Officers advised that PDNPA consider residential use may have
been abandoned, which would mean PP required to repair and re·
occupy as dwelling.
Due to location, unlikely that PP would be
granted as contrary to both national, regional and local planning
policies.
o
Mr H advised that current works merely repairs to roof, which he did
not consider needed PP, and no firm intention at that time to occupy
as a dwelling, although internal first floor would be re·instated.
o
Discussed the four tests applicable to abandonment and Mr H
advised that he had information to prove the previous owner had not
intended for the property to become abandoned.
10/11/2008
Letter
from
owner/applicant
in
which
she
states
that
she
has
documented
evidence .detailing,
attempts
to
repair
the
property,
confirming the non-occurrence of intervening use, that there was never
any deliberate act of abandonment and the intention was always that it

4/12/2008
22/12/2008
22/12/2008
26/112009
24/2/2009
26/3/2009
13/5/2009
14/5/2009
41612009
be re-occupied as a residential dwelling.
She confirms that despite
officer advice not to continue work at the property, her intention is to
carry on with repairs to the roof, installation of windows and re-instating
the floors as advised at the site meeting.
Letter to owner advising that in light of the intentions stated in their
letter dated *10/11/2008,* the Authority will now seek authorisation to
commence enforcement action.
Filenote of tele conversation between LJR and
in
which
essentially gives the same information as contained in
Document A above. Photographic record of property - roof now repaired, scaffolding down
and flue pipe inserted down chimney.
PCN issued and served on
PCN response,' dated 20/2/2009.
This contains various information,
which has now been confirmed in the LDC application documents.
Letter to owner acknowledging receipt of the PCN response. The letter
also states:-
•
reiterating that the recent works undertaken are considered to be
unauthorised
•
requests a schedule of works being carried out in view of the recent
underpinning works which took place in March 2009, the owners
statement that she intends to continue working on the property
despite our advice to cease, and Mr Powner's comment that
electricity is to be connected to the property on 1 April 2009
•
advised to submit LDC application if she considers that PP is not
required (as per her legal advice)
Filenote of meeting between DJM for the Authority, the owner, Mr A
Powner and Niall Blackie (Planning Agent)
•
discussed the necessity for PP, the risk of enforcement action and
the PDNPA serving an anticipatory EN in respect of the current
works, both of which the Agent adamantly disputed.
•
Agent and owners would not confirm that they intended to use the
building as a dwelling at this stage.
.
•
Advised to submit LDC application if they have evidence which they
consider shows that the residential use has not been abandoned.
•
Discussion of policy, whether PP likely to be granted and in what
form.
•
Agent referred to possibility of them serving a Purchase Notice if PP
were to be refused.
•
Agent confirmed that works were continuing and that windows had
now been
installed, with timber hardwood frames and double
glazed.
E-mail to Owner in which DJM advises, following legal advice,
that
case law is supportive of the approach that it is possible to serve an
anticipatory enforcement notice and that such notice could require
works to be undone that were not in themselves development within the
meaning of 5.55.
Filenote of meeting with a
in reception.
had called
into the office to find out the current status of the property.
ad
previously been interested in purchasing the propert
nd had
seen the property 8 years ago (2001?) and taken photographs and
recorded some details in
iary.
approached the PDNPA at
the time (CHECK P FILE) and been advised that it was
ikely that
would get PP to renovate it.
was disappointed that
had 'missed

the boat', and enquired about the possibility of renovating a similar building on the roaches that ad seen.

visited the property again 3-4 years ago and noted that slates appeared to have been purposefully removed from the roof.

had spoken with someone in the village who claimed to have known the owner and he had left details with them asking for them to be passed on to the owner
(presumably with an intention to purchase)
artner's contact details and said that ould look to provide copies of any photographs or information that ad.

11/6/2009
Photographic record shows that windows and doors have now been installed. Trenching work around the property has been commenced

## 4. Case Law And Legislative Provisions

The application has been submitted under 5.192 of the TCPA 1990, with the proposed use described as a resumption of occupation of a residential dwellinghouse.

The application has been submitted under the provisions of 5.192, rather under 5.191 for an existing use - the agent suggests the reason for this relates to potential enforcement issues that have arisen in relation to the works that have taken place since the applicant purchased the property in August 2008.

S.192(2) provides that *'if the LPA are supplied with information* satisfying them that the use ... described in the application would be lawful, if instituted or begun at the time of *the application. they shall* issue a certificate to that effect; and, in any other case, they shall refuse the application.'.

Circular *10/97* provides guidance on the legislative provisions and procedural requirements in lawful use applications, and states in Para. 8.26 'Where a *proposed change* of use is involved, it will be necessary to describe the present or last use of the land; and, where the lawfulness of that use is being relied upon to pave the way to implementing the proposed use, provide sufficient information to satisfy the LPA of the lawfulness of the existing use
(having regard to the criteria in *paragraph* 8.16* above for deciding what is lawful'.

The legal issue is whether the use of the building as a single dwellinghouse would be lawful if recommenced (at the time of the application), or whether the bUildings lawful use for residential purposes as a single dwelling, has been lost through operation of law, in this case by abandonment. If so, then the building would have a nil use, and any use for residential purposes as a single dwelling would involve a material change of use.

The Agent contends that the former residential use of the building has neither been abandoned nor distinguished, and it simply remains dormant in the context provided by the case of Panton. The Agent states that it is the applicant's contention that the proposed use is lawful, as the use of the dwelling is its eXisting use.

In order to determine the application we must examine the factual evidence against
the four criteria and principles set down in the leading cases of Trustees of the
Castell y Mynach Estate and Hughes:-
(i)
the physical condition of the building
(ii)
the length of time for which the building has not been used for residential
purposes
(iii)
whether it has been used for any other purpose, and
(iv)
the owner's intentions
The owner's subjective intention is not to be regarded as a decisive factor (Hughes), and the issue of abandonment must be determined objectively ie, the view to be taken by "a reasonable man", with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances.

the physical condition of the building The physical condition of the building at the present time is considerably different to that as it stood when the applicant purchased in August 2008.

The owner has undertaken various works of repair and renovation to the property (through her contractors), in order to make the building weatherproof and watertight.

The agent points out that the application must be determined on the facts as at the time of the application.

Whilst agreed this is the correct approach, it is considered that in looking at the facts, the condition of the building prior to the recent works of renovation, must also be a relevant consideration.

The condition of the property in June 2008 is well documented by the photographic record on the Authority files.

These show that the building had been allowed to deteriorate into a derelict and totally uninhabitable condition.

evidence states that maintained the property until but the evidence is unclear as to the extent of any further maintenance to the building after that date until 1995.

evidence then suggests that once the roof was stolen around 1995, ery quickly fell into disrepair, and that from this point the property was totally neglected, and the building was not maintained in any way to protect it and prevent it from falling further into a derelict state. By 2008, the stone tiled roof to the rear of the building had been stolen and the roof timbers and structure had collapsed, the remaining tiled roof was in a poor state with large holes, and rotted timbers, and most of the windows to the building had been lost, although two of the window frames to the front elevation and the door frames, remained.

Internally the building was completely derelict having been damaged through water penetration, leaving most of the internal walls and floors collapsed, the debris from the collapsed internal structure, 'and roof, covering the ground. The building was no longer secure and despite it's dangerous condition, it is clear from the graffiti on the remaining walls that trespassers had entered the building and caused further vandalism. The Agents details for the auction confirm that at the time no services were connected, although there had previously been an electricity connection, and a mains water connection lay in the vicinity
(Comment:
this conflicts with Documents B which suggest that services were connected to the property in the late 1970's).

Evidence to the physical condition of the building at the time of the application has been provided by the applicant in the form of the structural report (Document C).

This was commissioned in May 2009 to support this application, and to evidence that the works undertaken to date by the owners do not materially affect the external appearance. of the building (and thus do not require planning permission).

The report concludes that, given the age of the property, it is in relatively good condition, and that the building is of substantiai construction notwithstanding the state it was in prior to the repair works being undertaken, Since the applicants purchase of the property, works of repair and renovation have been undertaken by the current owner, despite the Authority's advice to cease works until the lawful use of the building could be formally determined.

The owner considers that the works are authorised and/or do not require planning permission, since the lawful use as a dwelling has not been abandoned. The Authority's view has been that until it can be shown that the lawful use for residential purposes has not been abandoned, the works remain unauthorised.

Full details of the works carried out were not provided with the application. Details of the contractors were requested from the applicant, in order to consult with them on the extent of the works undertaken since August 2009. Despite initially refusing the request, the information was reluctantly provided, albeit too late to make written consultation of the contractors within the 8 week determination period.

The Authority files suggest that the works undertaken include the provision of a roof, underpinning the building, re-pointing, laying a new ground floor and installing windows and frames and doors, although two windows remain boarded up inexplicably.

These evidently comprise works to make the property structurally sound and weatherproof.

Photographs on the Authority files dated 11 June 2009, provide a photographic record of the condition of the property around the time of the application.

These show that the building has had an entirely new roof, new windows and doors, it is now weatherproof and watertight, and trenching along the field and road suggest that some or a number of services have been connected.

the length of time for which the building has not been used for residential purposes The property has not been occupied since the mid 1970's, a period of approximately
35 years.

Although isited the property after that time to carry out maintenance with tial use was taking place. There is no evidence to suggest that the ever tried to let the property, nor did agree to sell the property to any of the interested parties that made offers to purchase the property from After parents died continued to hol to the property, and the fact that made no rent out, and refused to sell the property during lifetime, strongly suggests that wanted the property to lie empty (despite falling into disrepair)
rather than have any other person living in it.

The facts are very similar to those in the case of Trustees of the Castell y Mynach Estate, in which Nolan.J. suggested that a conscious decision not to re-Iet the property which had then lain empty for approximately 20 years, coupled with the fact that the property was allowed to fall into an uninhabitable state, had to come close to positive abandonment.

whether it has been used for any other purpose There is no evidence that the building has been used for any other purpose during the time that it has been vacant.

the owner's intentions Direct evidence of the previous owner's intentions is not available. The applicant has dealt with the issue by providing a letter from which states that 'it was neve ntention for the property to become so run down, and always intended it be used again as a dwelling'.

Further evidence was provided by a number of standard letters which state that it was always intention that the property be occupied as a residential dwelling.

Four of these letters are from members of but there is no explanation as to how the signatories of the remaining seven letters knew It is unclear how they knew the former owner, and how they knew of intentions for the property.

The agent has summed up the applicant's position, by saying that former owner
'....demonstrated a clear intention to maintain the dwellinghouse use'.

This view is at odds with actions, which show that little maintenance was carried out to the property after and that after the roof was stolen in 1995, no attempt was made to maintain the property and prevent it falling into disrepair.

suggests that after 1995, it became impossible for o make any attempt to restore the property, both physically, or financially, in view of the security risk.

It is clear that unfortunately or whatever reason, did not maintain the property, and it was allowed to fall int pair and then dereliction very quickly.

No attempt seems to have been made to secure the property, which inevitably led to random acts of vandalism, which assisted the encroaching dereliction.

It would appear that there were enquiries and requests made of o sell the property, qut these were always rejected.

The authors of the Roaches website claims that the owner was offered very tempting sums in the past, but was adamant that the cottage remained as it was.

There is also the comment from the roofing contractor (filenote dated *16/9/2008)* in which he told the Authority's officer that he had known the former owner, and that although had been approached to sell the property, had refused, wanting the property to stay as it was. This view falls in line with the fact that the former owner never made any attempts to rent the property, give or sell it to family, or put the property on the open market.

The Agent has argued that the facts of the case are similar to those discussed in Hale v Lichfield District Council [1979] JPL 425, otherwise unreported. In that case the property was the owner's home, and the property had lain empty whilst she was in hospital.

Despite her wish to return there one day she eventually died in hospital some 13 years later.

The facts are entirely different to those under consideration here, and the report on that case makes it clear that the finding of no abandonment, was based upon the subjective view of the owner's intention. It is clear from the later case of Hughes, that the correct approach is an objective one, ie the views of a reasonable man, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances.

The agent states that the applicant, 'purchased the property with the intention that it be brought back into habitable use', and 'had not considered the ...use might be considered by the LPA to be abandoned.'.

This is despite the fact that the Estate Agents marketing the property were advised by the PDNPA that the Authority considered the residential use to have been abandoned, and asked for that information to be attached to the sales particulars. The guide price for the property at auction was £40k, which reflects the planning status of the property that the residential use had been abandoned.

5.

Conclusion The evidence clearly shows that the property has not been used for residential purposes for a period of approximately 30 plus years, which is a significant period of time.

For 20 or more of those years, the property had been allowed to deteriorate into such a condition that by June 2008, it had become derelict and uninhabitable.

Although the property has not been used for any other purpose, neither has the property been allowed to be used for residential purposes. Certain evidential facts are clear, in that the owner took no positive actions to allow the property to be used for residential purposes during ifetime through either renting the property, or allowing it to be sold.

Neither has any evidence has been adduced to suggest that made any attempt to reside in the property Despite the fact that maintaining the property had become such a security and financial burden, made no attempt to allow its re-use in order to remove the burden andlor pr security and maintenance of the property.

The applicant's evidence (Docs. A and B) takes a subjective view of the former owner's intention, and suggests that ished the property to remain in use for residential purposes.

By contrast, the comments on the roaches website and by the roofing contractor, suggest that the former owner did not wish the property to be lived in at all, and states that esisted tempting sums of money to sell the property, and ished it to remain as it was. Unfortunately all of this evidence is hearsay, and sUbjective in any event.

In Nicholls v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] J.P.L. 890 McNeill.J.

pointed out that the intention of the owner may be established from both direct evidence and from their conduct, whether or not this may contradict their direct evidence. Unfortunately, as has now passed away, we are not able to obtain direct evidence as to intentions.

However, it is considered that conduct is convincing evidence that had no intention to use the property for residential purposes, and that actions represent a positive act of abandonment of the residential use.

The agent argues that the residential use has not been abandoned and has simply lain dormant in accordance with the decision in Panton.

In Panton, the Deputy Judge suggested that a dormant use represented a use which had arisen by way of a material change of use, but was now inactive, possibly for a long period of time. It is considered that the residential use has been lost by operation of law ie, abandonment, but in any event, it is considered that a use cannot lay dormant where it is incapable of taking place Kennedy L.J in Hughes held that the test of abandonment was an objective one, ie, the view of the reasonable man with knowledge of all relevant circumstances, and the subjective intention of the owner was not a decisive factor.

Taking all four relevant factors into account, it is concluded that in view of:-
(i)
the substantial length of time the property lay empty
(ii)
the fact that the property had not been maintained and had been allowed
(intentionally or not) to become derelict and uninhabitable
(iii)
the former owner's refusal to allow the property to be used for residential purposes by selling or letting the property, that any reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances would conclude that by June 2008, the residential use of the property was not in a dormant state, but that it had been abandoned.

The facts of this case are complicated by the applicant's actions during the last 12
months to repair and renovate. the building prior to submitting this application. The applicant has stated that at the time of purchase she was unaware of the PDNPA
officers view of abandonment. This advice was given to the Auctioneers with a clear request to attach a copy of the advice to the sales particulars.

Subsequently the applicant and her agent have been clearly advised by officers on a number of occasions on both the issue of abandonment, and that any works to renovate the property were likely to be unauthorised.

Despite this advice, works to renovate the property have continued during the last twelve months.

It is considered that by the time the applicant purchased the property in August 2008, the property had already been abandoned and its lawful use was a nil use.

In addition, works undertaken on the property since August 2008 are considered to be unauthorised and any resumption of the use of the property for residential purposes would not be lawful, and would require planning permission for the reasons outlined above.

The application should therefore be refused.

Date: 26 August 2009
Date:
1July 2009
P-File To:
File:
P. 2465
Jo Sirkin From:

## Re: Mount Pleasant, Upper Hulme.

Message rec'd to ring Mrs Roberts (member) about the application. Tel'd her to confirm that I
was dealing with the application and to ask how I could help. She wanted to know how and when I would be dealing with the malter, and in particular on what basis we decided whether a use of a dwelling had been abandoned or not, when the building clearly looked like a house from the outside.

.

I explained that the decision was taken purely on the facts of the case applied to the relevant case law. In cases of abandonment, the most relevant case law was Hughes which laid out the four criteria that we needed to take into account when deciding whether a use had been abandoned or not. I went through each of the criteria with Mrs Roberts in detail and explained fully how a decision would be made.

Whilst at first she was surprised the decision did not require material decisions to be taken into account, she did ultimately appreciate how the facts had to be applied to the case law to make a decision.

She queried what would happen if the application were refused, and I said in that case the building would have a nil use, and the owners would need to apply for planning permission to undertake any use with it. She said that she had not appreciated this was the case and thought a refusal would mean it could just never be lived in again. I said that was not correct. A refusal simply meant the existing use had been abandoned, but that would not prevent the owner from applying for planning permission for a residential use once again, and if that was against policy, then to make a clear application showing why an exception should be made in that particular case.

She was very happy with this and thought this was probably the best way forward. I said clearly that I would not be taking any of these matters into consideration, and that all my remit required was a consideration of the historical facts presented in the evidence and their application to the relevant case law.

She said that she was away when the decision was due to be made, and I offered to e-mail her
·a copy of the decision when it was issued. We discussed issues of protocol covering delegated
\
authority and the appeal process, and I confirmed that although the main legislation had been amended to provide a time limit for LDC appeals, the Order had not been amended as yet, and no time limit was yet in place.

="''tJate

## National Park Authority

Tel: 01629 816200
Fax: 01629 816310
E-mail: customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk Web: www.peakdistrict.gov.uk Minicom: 01629 816319
Aldem House. Baslow Road. Bakewell. Derbyshire. DE45 IAE
-
-
Our Ref: KZILDCACK2/P 2465
Date: 23 June 2009
FBC Manby Bowdler LLP
Routh House Hall Court Hall Park Way Telford Shropshire TF34NJ
Dear Sir/Madam Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Application Code Number:
NP/SMl0609/0463
Application for Certificate of Lawful Development for proposed use as a dwelling.

Mount Pleasant Upper Hulme Leek

This letter acknowledges fonnal receipt of the above application which was formally registered on 11 June 2009
The person who will initially be dealing with your application is Clare Palmer. Your application falls into a category of application which can be determined by officers acting under delegated powers. We aim to make such decisions within a time period of 8 weeks. However, some times these applications are not straightforward and may take longer than 8 weeks to detennine. If this happens, we will notify you and request you to agree in writing an extension to the period in which a decision may be made.

## If By 06 August 2009

•
You have not been told that your application is invalid; or
•
You have not been told that your fee cheque has been dishonoured; or
•
You have not been given a decision in writing; or
•
You have not agreed in writing to extend the period in which a decision may be given
then you can appeal to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under section 195 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

You must use a form which you can get from Ihe The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BSl 6PN (telephone 0117 3728000).

It may be necessary for the case officer to make a visit to inspect the property. In that case Clare Palmer will contact you in due course to arrange an appointment which is mutually convenient.

As any determination is made on the basis of fact rather than the planning merits of the development, it is usually necessary to consult various third parties, i.e., neighbours, parish councils etc, for any factuai comments they may wish to make on the application, which could verify, or alternatively conflict with, evidence in support of the application.

If it is necessary to consult on your application, this will usually be done once the site visit has been made.

In the meantime, if you have any queries in connection with your application, please do not hesitate to contact Clare Palmer.

Yours faithfully Karen Zubertowski Administration Officer Holder of Council ofEurope *Dipfoma* .... ~..

Member ofthe Association ofNational Park Authorities Chief Executive: Jim Dixon Chair: Narendra Bajaria Deputy Chair. Irene Ratdiffe Working together for the Peak District National Park:
-A special environment -A welcoming place at the heart ofthe nation -Vibrant communities and a thriving economy·

## T&Cp (Environmental Impact Assessment! (E&Wl Regulations 1999

This form is to be used for all proposals which fall in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the above Regulaflons.

PLEASE INDICATE BELOW WITH A TICK IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX WHICH SCHEDULE THE
PROPOSAL FALLS WITHIN AND FOR SCHEDULE 2 PROJECTS INDICATE WHETHER AN EIA IS
REQUIRED GIVING REASONS:

.
1.The proposal falls within Schedule 1 **and** therfore an **EIA** has to be provided.
2 The proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the regulations and an EIA is required for the following reasons:
3.The proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the regulations but an EIA is not required as the development does not have a significant impact on the environment due to its characteristics, location and potential impact Form completed by Planning Manager Date:
Comments by allocation Officer (if any) prior to Site Visit: -

## Issues To Consider:

•
Impact of development on neighbouring properties - overlooking etc
•
Landscape impact - topography, features of importance etc
•
Design and scale of development
•
Access - parking, etc
•
Wider neighbour notification letters
•
Photographic evidence, showing relationship of proposal t%n neighbouring properties,
plus wider spatial impact of development on the streetscenellandscape, (views from
public vantage points and rights of way etc).
•
Any agreed amendments/alterations or contacts with agent/applicant/neighbours etc prior
to determination should be noted on this sheet inclUding date and reason

## Comment Collins Rich

support@planningportal.gov.uk
05 June 2009 08:39
Planning Service
ACTION: Collect proposal PP-00746034v1

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

A planning proposal has been submitted on-line to your LPA using the Planning Portal.

You must collect this proposal from the Portal within the next 30 days.

You are obliged to contact the applicant within 10 working days.

fl:

was:U67.s· bp.

using the Portal fee calculator, the user calculated that the fee due
It is your responsibility to ensure that this fee is correct

You should expect to receive a cheque payment for this amount.

The proposal reference number is:
                                  PP-00746034v1

~ThiS e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by
  MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the
  clock, around the globe, visit:
  http://www.star.net.uk

•

# Date: June 2009 Town And Country Planning Act 1990 Application For Certificate Of Lawfulness Of Proposed Use Mount Pleasant Roach Road Upper Hulme Near Leek Staffordshire St138Ub

## Mrs A Harvey Supporting Submission

FBC MANBY BOWDLER LLP
ROUTH HOUSE
HALL COURT
HALL PARKWAY
TELFORD
TF34NJ
NB/AJS/931548/1/Har Application is made by Alison Harvey for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use in respect of the dwelling known as Mount Pleasant Roach Road Upper Hulme Near Leek. The proposed use is the resumption of occupation of a residential dwellinghouse. It is the applicant's contention that the proposed use is lawful, as the use of the property as a dwelling is its existing use and there has been no abandonment of that use. Having regard for the ability or appropriateness of the Council taking enforcement steps in relation to the current situation or any future occupation, this application is made 'as one for a proposed use, rather than for existing use.

Background.
The Applicant purchased the property in July 2008, it having being placed on the
2
market for sale following
The
property was, and remains, a substantial dwelling.
The property was originally built and constructed by a James Williamson, Yeoma~, in 1844.
On 10
3
December 1862, it was conveyed to Richard Williamson for the sum of £25,00. In 1882, the property
passed out of the Williamson family, by conveyance to a William Spooner Brough and remained with
him until his death after which the property was purchased by a William Alexander Tatton, a silk mill
owner. In 1929, the property was transferred into the ownership of Messrs W Tatton and Co Ltd.
From 1930, the Plant family rented the property, although the property was not purchased until
4
March 1971. JohnPlant worked for the mill. Mount Pleasant was their family home and was kept in
good repair during the period of their occupation.
John and his wife Agnes had 3 children beforel o~
they moved to Mount Pleasant, and another 5 during their occupancy there.
5
John Plant had been particularly fond of his garden and grew both flowers and vegetables which \C:V
provided sustenance during the war years.
The family was very sociable, sometimes inviting
strangers in and providing hospitality.
Agnes Plant was a very proud lady, a competent housewife
and mother who kept her house and household in order.
6
In
purchased the property, so that
it would remain in family ownership.
parents were elderly and
anted to ensure they could
remain in the property without concern over rent.
After the death of
arents at the end of the
1970s,
continued the upkeep of the property for many many years with the intention that it
remain a family home.
7
The applicant and the family of the
onsider that the property has remained in
residential use throughout the period of their combined ownerships and that that use continues
today.
The purpose of this application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is to regularise that position
legally.
8
Caselaw.
In 2000, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of abandonment in the case of
Hughes'. The Court of Appeal considered what was the proper test for establishing whether the use
of a property continued and concluded that the relevant factors to be considered were:
i)
The physical condition of the property;
ii)
The length of time for which the building had not been used for residential purposes;
iii)
Whether it had been used for any other purposes;
iv)
The owners' intentions having regard for what the reasonable man, with knowledge of all the
relevant circumstances, would conclude.
This is the test against which the iawfulness of Mount Pleasant should be considered.

The applicants refer to the letter provided by
s to the occupation of the property by
9
family, attached marked "A". It confirms the details of the historic use of the property,
the circumstances of their acquisition, the use of the property during their ownership, and the
intentions of the family in respect of the dwelling. The history of the site clearly indicates that neither
the use of the dwellinghouse on site or the use of the land for residential purposes has been
abandoned.
It is the case that the dwelling, although used more infrequently in recent years, was
intended for use as a dwelling by the
family and latterly by the Applicants.
The
applicants also refer to a further letter, produced and signed by various family members, including
three of
and which confirms that there has never been any intention to use the
property for any purpose other than a resideniial dwelling. These letters are attached marked "6".
Physical Condition. In older age, the upkeep became more of a task, and following
10
death,
found it more difficult to keep the property in good repair and secure.
The
dwellinghouse has been subject, in recent years, to vandalism.
Part of the roof was stolen in 1995
resulting in water ingress and causing further damage. Following
cquisition of the
property,
anaged the upkeep of the property. A structural report is attached
marked "C".
The works of repair recently carried out did not materially affect the external
appearance of the building and did not, accordingly, amount to development, by virtue of s55(2)(a) of
the Act. The question of physical condition of the property must be addressed at today's date. The
report shows that it is sound, with only a little further structural work being recommended. The other
works needed to render it habitable would be internil.l, and again, not such as to amount to
development.
11
Length of time not used I Used for other purposes. Until the late 1970s the application property
was used as a permanent dwelling by Mr & Mrs Plant.
From that time until about 1998 the dwelling
was kept in use though not occupied by
ho used to visit the property regularly to
maintain it and look after it. The residential use of the property and its garden continued during
ownership and it has never been the intention of
or indeed the
Applicants, to abandon the use of the dwelling on site or the land which comprises its curtilage and
gardens. Certainly there has been no intervening use of the dwelling or of its curtilage and garden
areas. The period on non-use after 1995 when the roof was stolen is not long enough to be material
in planning terms.
12
Intention.
always retained a keen interest in the property which, for
brought
back many fond memories.
isited it regularly and despite ageing years, demonstrated a ciear
intention to maintain the dwellinghouse use.
Some attempts were made to carry out works of
maintenance to the property:
rranged for the outside toilet to be demolished and had parts of
the roof and chimneys repaired. Following a break-in at the property,
eported the matter to the
police.
also managed various internal works of maintenance and repair.
Notwithstanding
efforts, the property fell into disrepair, exacerbated by damage caused by vandals during the last few
years.
There has never been a point where the owner had an intention contrary to use as a
dwelling.
Even before the case of Hughes, the intention of parties has been considered to be a determinative
13
factor in addressing the continuance of a residential use over time.
In 1979, the issue was
addressed in the case of Hale2• In that instance, Mrs Hale had spent the last 13 years of her life in
hospital during which time her home was entirely left empty and no repairs were carried out.
Following her death, personal representatives of the estate obtained a declaration to the effect that
the residential use of the property had not been abandoned due to her clear intention to maintain it
as her home.
The circumstances in Hale are similar to that of Mount Pleasant where it has been the
advancing years and personal circumstances of the owner which have lead to the property falling
into disrepair.
The evidence of
in
letter of 16 February 2009 (attached marked "A") demonstrates a
14
clear intention that the property should remain in residential use, as a family home and that the use
was never intended to be abandoned. Indeed, the physical condition of the building does not of itself
lead to a conclusion of abandonment. The property remains substantially complete and there is no
need for any element of rebuilding or substantial renovation to bring the property up to modern
standards for habitation.
Whist it is not currently occupied as a permanent residence, it has
remained lawfUlly in residential use, until recently being furnished and looked after.
It is clear,
therefore, that the residential use of the site has not been extinguished.
Accordingly, the use
remains lawful and a reversion to that use would not constitute a material change.
15
Summary. The existing property on site was occupied as a main family residence from at least 1930
until the late 1970s, at which time it had been purchased by
ith the sole intention
that it remain a residential property in the family ownership.
Deeds and documents have indicated
that the property was in fact used as a family residence from its construction in 1844. The present
condition of the dwelling precludes its use currently, although the evidence submitted with this
application makes clear that there has never been any intention to abandon the dwellinghouse use.
The reason for its state of disrepair is quite simply due to the increased instances of vandalism and
break-in during the owner's advancing years at a time when it was not used as a daily residence.
The residential use has neither been abandoned nor extinguished. The use was, lawfully, dormant
in the context of the case of Panton3
16
The current owners and Applicants purchased the property with the intention that it be brought back
into habitable use. The Applicants had not considered that the previous dwellinghouse use might be
'.
considered by the local planning authority to be abandoned, given the clear intention of the previous
owner to maintain the status quo, the relatively short period of non-occupation, and indeed the
previous owner's attempts at carrying out repairs to the property despite having lost her husband
and her own old age Applying the test set out in Hughes, it is clear that the residential use has not
been abandoned and that a reasonable man having regard for the circumstances of the matter
would conclude that a residential use remained.
Accordingly, and on the basis of the supporting
evidence, a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use should be granted for the resumption of
occupation of the dwelling and the residential use of the application site.
01629816310

# E: T: F: De451Ae -----...-----_ ..

NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed use or development.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Section 192, as amended by section 10 of the Planning and Compensation act 1991.

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995
Publication of applications on planning authority websites. N
pIS ~AI 06n9046.3
Please note that the information provided on this application form and in SUPPO~ing ~o~ulments may be MIiSlied on the Authority's website.

[f you require any further clarification, please contact the Authority's planning department.

## 1. Applicant Name, Address And Contact Details 2. Agent Name, Address And Contact Details 3. Site Address Details 4. Pre-Application Advice

Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application?

If Yes, please complete the following information about the advice you were given (this will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently):
Details of the pre-application advice received:
!Agreed that the Applicant should submit a Certificate of Lawfulness application providing details as to the use of the property as a dwelling. I

## 5. Interest In Land

Please state the applicant's interest in the land: (e'
a) Owner I
b) Lessee c) Occupier I
d) Other

## 6. Authority Employee/Member

With respect to the Authority, I am:
(a) a member of staff
(b) an elected member
(c) related to a member of staff (d) related to an elected member Do any of these statements apply to you?

## -- 7. Grounds For Application Information About The Existing Use(S)

Please explain why you consider the existing or last use of the land is lawful, or why you consider that any existing bUildings, which it Is proposed to alter or extend are lawful:
The property has been in residential use since at least 1930 and, from deeds and documents, since the time of its construction in 1844. The property is currently unoccupied but the use has not been abandoned and the applicant considers that the proposed resumption of occupancy is lawful.

Please see SUDDorting Submission Please list the supporting documentary evidence (such as a planning permission) which accompanies this application:
Supporting Submission and attachments marked "A", "B" and "C"
Location Plan, Plans and Elevations (existing)
If you consider the existing or last use is within a 'Use Class' in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) state which one: 10
I I
I
Information about the proposed use(s)

If *you* consider the proposed use is within a 'Use Class' in the Town and
IC3
I I
I
Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), state which one:

Is the proposed operation or use:
~, Permanent Why do you consider that a Lawful Development Certificate should be granted for this proposal?

~ ~~e proposal is for the resumption of occupation of an existing resident\al property.

Please see SUDDorting Submission

## 8. Description Of Proposal

Does the proposal consist of, or include, the carrying out af building or other operations? C Yes
10
No Does the proposal consist of, or include, a change of use of the land or building(s)? n Yes
10
No Has the proposal been started? G Yes
10, No

## 9. Site Visit

Can the site be seen fram a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land?

eYes
(0
No If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one)
(0; The agent n The applicant
() Other person

## 10. Declaration

J/we hereby apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information.

## 337.90M .. Site Plan Scale 1:500

HULMEUPRIGHTMANNING ..

ARCHITR:TS
TOWN PlANNERS
INTWOR DESIGNERS
_

Highpalot
Fe,,/v,l M
H'n1ey
Ston-on--Trent
STI 5SH

Tel: 01782 208600

Ermil ••",b@hum..rdl.co.uk

## Mount Pleasant

CopyrightQhli~ draWl" I, ..It<!d I. *tho* Ardlltcet BOd It must nat be cap!ed ar~

## ~ Drawn I Comments Np/Smi 06090463

To whom It may concern

## Re: Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme, Nr Leek S113 8Ub

Mount Pleasant was my family's home from 1930 until July 2008, when It was sold upon the sad, unellpected, and sudden demise o

The property was originally a one up, one down cottage, built In 1844, with later additions either side. It was owned by Tattons Silk Mill, and was rented by my parents, John William plaht and Agnes Plant, In January 1930.

My Father worked for Tattons as a dyehouse labourer, and Mother was a full time housewife and mother.

On 3 Feb
                      was born In Mount Pleasant. Iwas born there In
                                                            and
In

                                     born In Meerbrook village, some time before, and one of
the reasons we moved to Mount Pleasant was for afresher environment, as my Father suffered
from a pollen allergy which was more prevalent down in the valley.

At one time, there were eight members of our family living at Mount Pleasant, and It was a very
•
happy family home for many years to come.

My Father saw active service during the First World War, and during the Second World War he was afirespotter, sitting on fatton's roof, and also manned the siren for two nights each week.

Mother was a full time mother and housewife.

The property had electricity Installed In 1963, and the telephone was connected In the early 1970s.

The phone number was Leek 329.

My father's garden was very Important to him at Mount Pleasant-It was his pride and Joy - and our family never went hungry, even during the war when he would sometimes be tending the garden until midnight, taking advantage of the double summer time. Vegetables and flowers were grown, and rabbits were sometimes shot from one ofthe upstairs windowsl, My Father and Mother were very sociable people and would talk to anybody, They often allowed the climbers to get changed In their kitchen, making them a cup of tea, and chatting to them.

                              bought Mount Pleasant from Tattons In the early 1970s to
ensure that It would always remain the family home.
             ere living at
                                                                by this time, which
remained
            home until she passed away, unexpectedly,

                                     was a happy soul who spent much of
                                                                     life at
Mount Pleasant wit
                   grandparents.
                                 didn't go to school afterthe age of 11 because of
Illness, and Iremember how
                         used to go up to the cottage on
                                                     little panda motorbike to
spend time with my Father and Mother.
                                     ad many fond memories of
                                                               hildhood and
adult life at Mount Pleasant, and the precious time
                                               spent there, and this was one ofthe
reasons
          id not want to sell It during
                                   lifetime•

                                        maintained the property until
                                                                       eath, after which
time various members of the family helped
                                             ook after the place, althoug
                                                                            as stubborn
and proud and even if
                       needed help,
                                       would not have asked for it.

The 'thunderbolt' - outdoor 100 - was taken down In the 1980s as an Internal 100 had been
installed some time earlier and Iremember that
                                            had the roof repaired and the chimney pots
were replaced
                kept the place tidy and It was carpeted and furnished,

The property was broken Into and the fireplace and water geyser were stolen
                                                                           had died
by then, so we repaired the propertyfor
                                       and the break In was reported to the police.
However, It was broken Into again on several further occasions.

The rear roof was stolen overnight sometime In 1995- beautiful heavy sandstone flags - and the
property fell Into a state of disrepair from then onwards due to water Ingress and further
vandalism.

Mount Pleasant was furnished and carpeted, but these Items were stolen or destroyed by the
vandals over the subsequent years. Irememberthere being a dressing table and other Items of
furniture strewn on the road on one occasion, and all the lovely old floor slabs were stolen.

It was never
                           intention for the property to become so run down, and
                                                                                                             lways Intended
for It to be a residential dwelling, but once the roof was stolen, It was Impossible for
                                                                                                                          oth
financially and practically- with the security Issues - to restore It sufficiently to prevent It falling
Into a state of disrepair.

           a very proud and single-minded
                                          who would not ask for help from the family
and kept everything very close. The death
                                                                   at such a young'
age, had a marked effect on
                          for the res
                                                                   d of the long
standing family home, Mount Pleasant, which held so many happy memories o
                                                                      hildhood and
family life, and where
                     belove
                                had spent so much of
                                                     short life
                                                                 held onto those
memories very dearly, and always considered Mount Pleasant to be
                                                           family home, albeit In a
state of some disrepair in latter years.

                        when life was simpler and less bureaucratic, and expected
home to remain a home - that's what it had always beenl
                                             would never have believed that
local officials could have deemed it to be anything other than that, and would have been
devastated at the possibilitythat Mount Pleasant might no longer be considered a home, as It had
been as such long before the Peak Park authority was established. Indeed, would this matter even
have been raised I
                  was still alive?
                                would certainly have mad
                                                       eelings very clear to
you, and, as a family, we would all have supported
                                         n this. It seems Incredible that there is
any questIon over Mount Pleasant being a home, Just because
                                                      as unable to maintain
the property due to theft, wanton vandalism, finances, and encroaching old age.

As a family, we would be delighted for Mount Pleasant to be repaired and restored to Itsformer
'glory', and would take great pleasure In seeing It as someone else's happy family home, and I
know that the local community feels the same.

Ido hope that the necessary authorities talle heed ofthe Information within this letter, and realise
that Mount Pleasant was our family home, has never been anything other than our family home,
and Is stili considered as such by the remaining members of my family..

To Whom It May Concern Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAp. UppER HULME, NR LEEK. STA~~ORDSHIRE STU BUB
The above mentioned property was formerly owned by

## Our Parents Lived At Mount Pleasant Until Their Deaths

After their deaths, id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely adecision not to occupy th~ prpperty at that time. Unfortunately, It was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie.

stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell Into astate of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the Intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern

## Re: Background Information On The Property Known As Mount Pleasant. Roach Road, Upper Hulme, Iilr Leek, Staffordshire Stu 8Ub

The above mentioned property was formerly owned b who Our parents lived at Mount Pleasant until their deaths

After their deaths,
                       did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing
the chimney stack
                        services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property
at that time. Unfortunately, it was thereaftervandallsed on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie.
stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the intention has always been that it
be occupied as a residential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern

## Re: Background Information On The Property Known As Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, **Upper** Hulme, Nr Leek, Staffordshire St13 Sub

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by ho

## Our Parents Lived At Mount Pleasant Until Their Death

After their deaths id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time. Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie.

stone roof slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the Intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern

## Be: Background Information On The Property Known As Mount Pleasant. Roach Road, Upper Hulme, Nr Leek. Staffordshire St13 Bub

The above mentioned property was formerly owned by who Our parents lived at Mount Pleasant until their deaths After their deaths, id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant - repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property at that time. Unfortunately, It was thereafter vandallsed on many occasions, and materials stolen, Ie.

stone roof slabs. As a consequence. the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and the intention has always been that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern Re: Background informiltlon on the property known ilS
MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK. STAfFORDSHIRE STU SUB
ty was formerly owned ho

Afte
         parents' deaths
                                                        id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant-
repairing the roof, and re
                                                        rvices were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property
at that time.

Unfortunately, It was thereaftervandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie. stone roof
slabs. As aconsequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and
                                                                intention was always
that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern Re: Background Information on the propertY known as MOUNT PLEASANT. ROACH ROAD. UPPER HULME. NR LEEK. STAFFORDSHIRE SIU SUB
The above mentioned property was formerly owned ho Afte parents' death did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant -
repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services we~e connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely adecision not to occupy the property atthat time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, Ie. stone roof slabs. As aconsequence, the property fell into a state ofdisrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and ntention was always that It be occupied as aresidential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANL ROACH ROAD, UPPER HULME, NR LEEK. STAFFORDSHIRE 5113 BUB
The above mentioned property was formerly owned who

After
         parents' deaths
                                                          did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant-
repairing the roof, and replacing the chimn
                                                           rvices were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property
at thattime,

Unfortunately, It was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie. stone roof
slabs. As a consequence, the property fell Into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other'purpose, and
                                                               intention was always
that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

.

Address
..),9..:S.:..9..3........

Date To Whom It May Concern Be: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD. UPPER HULME, NR LEEK. STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 8UB
The above mentioned property was formerly owne who

After
         parents' death
                                                          id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant-
repairing the roof, and r
                                                         rvices were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property
at that time.

Unfortunately, It was thereafter vandallsed on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie. stone roof
slabs. As a consequence, the property fell Into a state of disrepair overthe years,

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and
                                                                ntention was always
that It be occupied as a residential dwelling.

Address

\c..q·o~
.1.
           .
Date

To Whom It May Concern Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD. UPPER HULME. NR LEEK. STAFFORDSHIRE STU BUB
The above mentioned property was formerly owned ho After parents' deaths did attempt to maintain Mount Pleasantrepairing the roof, and re rvices were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely adecision not to occupy the property at thattime.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie. stone roof slabs. As aconsequence, the property fell into astate of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, an Intention was always that it be occupied as aresid ential dwelling.

To Whom It May Concern Re: Background Information on the property known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD. UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAFFORDSHIRE ST13 SUB
The above mentioned property was formerly owned who

After
          arents' death
                                                           id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant-
repairing the roof, and replacing the chimney stacks, and services were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision' not to occupy the property
atthattlme.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandalised on many occasions, and materials stolen, Ie. stone roof
slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state of disrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and
                                                              intention was always
that It be occupied as a residential dwelling.

.

Date To Whom It May Concern Re; Background Information on tlte propertl! known as MOUNT PLEASANT, ROACH ROAD. UPPER HULME, NR LEEK, STAffORDSHIRE STU SUB
Tlte above mentioned property was formerly owned wh

After
          arents' deaths
                                                          id attempt to maintain Mount Pleasant-
repairing the roof, and re
                                                          rvices were connected to the property.

There was never any deliberate act of abandonment, merely a decision not to occupy the property
at that time.

Unfortunately, it was thereafter vandallsed on many occasions, and materials stolen, ie. stone roof
slabs. As a consequence, the property fell into a state ofdisrepair over the years.

The property has never been used for any other purpose, and
                                                                Intention was always
that it be occupied as a residential dwelling.

...l..Q..:..s.':'.:'1.,...~! 'is' '
Date Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Dale: May 2009
ffiAK DISTRICT NATIONALMIlKAUDlORIlY
AllOCATED :GROUP
OFFICER
~ JUN 2009

## Structural Appraisal

at Mount Pleasant Roach Road Upper Hulme ST13 SUB
for Mrs A Harvey
)~) MCII~'
1'010(/0
,-JewL.()slle undel-lvlI1U
SJolla' ds l1il("
SIS II\[
Tel: 01782 :.,,\9400
lox: 0' *IS2* 3,'940 I
E,I(oil: inlo@obO.COl1sulling.co.uk Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Dale: May 2009

## Contents

1.0
Introduction
2.0
External Observations
3.0
Internal Observations
4.0
Conclusions and Recommendations
Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

## 1.0 Introduction

ABA Consulting were appointed to carry out a visual structural appraisal of this building.

The purpose of the appraisal is to assess the current structural condition and identify any significant remedial works necessary to maintain the structural integrity.

The survey was carried out on 26 May 2009. The weather was fine and dry.

The dwelling is located adjacent to Roach Road. The front elevation is approximately 7
metres from the roadside.

The building is slightly elevated above road level and ground levels continue to rise to the rear.

The building is an old stone cottage that is currently being renovated.

Various repairs have already been carried out.

2.0
External Observations

## Front Elevation

The cottage is constructed in stone masonry with a stone tiled roof. The roof pitches to the front and rear with central ridge between end gables. The roof has previously been stripped and original tiles re-Iaid to incorporate a felt membrane beneath the battens.

The roof ridge line appears relatively straight with no undulations noted to the front slope.

Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009
Chimney stacks are located on the right side elevation and at one third from the left side elevation.

Both appear to be in reasonable conditions. although some repointing is required.

The front elevation contains 3 No. window openings at first floor level with 2 No. window openings and 2 No. door openings at ground floor.

There also appears to have been another central opening at ground floor. which has been infilled previously.

The stone lintel and cill are visible to the in filled opening adjaCent to the window of the central ground floor room. This is likely to have been carried out during the works to the original extension which is considered to be in excess of 75 - 100 yrs All openings have original stone cills and lintels above.

Areas of stone masonry have been re-pointed although generally the mortar joints are in reasonable condition given its age.

The building has been extended some time previously with the central section being original and the two gables more recent.

The extended sections simply butt up to the original masonry. although the right side has since been course bonded above the door opening.

Cracking is noted between the right window cill at first floor down to the head of the window below.

There is also rotation in the window cills and lintels to suggest some settlement has occurred on the front right corner.

This is considered to be isolated movement and would expect the underpinning works to have stabilised this corner.

Areas of stone masonry have been repointed with some joints raked out ready to be repointed.

The weathering to the face of the stone is generally consistent to all areas which would indicate it is original construction.

Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009
The wall has slight undulations over its length and height, although not significantly out of plumb.

The front right corner and side elevation has recently been underpinned using the traditional mass concrete 'hit and miss' method. This does not appear to have disturbed the original stone work, although mortar joints need to be repointed to maintain weather tightness.

## Right Side Elevation

This is a gabled elevation with stone copings extending slightly above the roof level.

This elevation contains one small window opening at ground and first floor.

The stone masonry has been repointed above eaves level and prepared for repointing at lower level.

There are no significant cracks to note, although a slight drop in the bed joints is noted towards the front.

The full length of the side elevation has been underpinned.

Again there are undulations in the gable although given the thickness of the wall these are not excessive.

## Rear Elevation

Ground levels have been reduced along this elevation and the wall partly underpinned to link with outcropping bedrock towards the rear left corner.

Mount Pleasant. Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Dale: May 2009
There are currently no openings although a first floor door opening and ground floor.

window have previously been infilled. The stone work to both the infilled openings have consistent weathering with adjacent stonework which would suggest it was carried out some considerable time ago.

The jOints between the original and extended sections of the dwelling have opened approximately 2-3mm.

There was however, no significant displacement vertically or perpendicular to the original building.

The stone masonry below the original ground level has been raked out and prepared for repointing.

There are undulations noted to the rear elevation and a slight bulge at eaves. This is not excessive given the thickness of het wall.

## Left Side Elevation

Ground levels slope down to the front elevation.

There are no openings to this elevation.

The elevation is gabled with stone copings set slightly above the roof pitch level.

The section of stone masonry above eaves has again been repointed.

The masonry below is in relatively good condition although localised areas require repointing to maintain weather tightness.

Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

## 3.0 Internal Observations

Internally, there are 3 No. rooms at ground floor and first floor divided by the walls to the original central section.

A new ground floor slab has been installed with damp proof membrane visible to the perimeters.

The walls are all exposed stone masonry. which have been repainted and repaired previously.

The 1'1 floor has been replaced with new joists spanning front to rear.

The roof is now supported by new rafters spanning between the steel purlins to the ridge and wall plate at eaves level.

When the building was extended it appears the original roof was raised approximately
400mm. This is evident in the change in stone masonry beneath the roof pitch and lack of course bonding with the original stonework.

Although there are isolated bonded sections of masonry to link with the original, it is recommended that each course is bonded to avoid any slippage. This applies to the two internal walls on the front slope.

Some new door openings have been formed at ground and 1" floor level and existing openings built up.

The stairs had not been installed at the time of inspection

## 4.0 Conclusions

Given the age of the dwelling, it is in relatively good condition.

The stonework is substantial with wails in excess of 400mm thick.

With the exception of isolated repointing there does not appear to have been any recent alterations to the original stonework.

To the perimeter walls various openings have been infilled with stonework. The degree of weathering is consistent generally with the original central section. This would tend to suggest the stone infill is of considerable age and certainly in excess of 75yrs.

TFnoOf-haS"been-striPPtl~llnd1i1ene='aid·toincor.porate a.felLmembrane beneath the'2
(batte~
With the exception of the cracking noted to the front elevation, there are no significant defects within the external walls.

The cracking and distortion of the adjacent window openings suggests some settlement of the front right corner has occurred. This section has since been underpinned including the rear elevation to extend the foundation down to bedrock.

Our recommendations generally are:

1.
Re-point joints to maintain weather tightness
2.
Ensure gable walls are strapped into roof and floor levels for restraint.
3.
Tanking may be required if ground levels extend above Ground Slab level.
4.
Internal stonework walls above the original roof pitch to be course bonded.
To summarise and in our opinion the extent of works recently undertaken generally includes repointing and isolated repair works to stone masonry.

!'rtfje}~yorks-tC)ttlEfro1Jf
~iscounted tile repair w'trks undertaken have not materially affected the external Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Dale: May 2009
appearance of the building.

Further the building is of substantial construction notwithstanding the state it was in prior to the repair works being undertaken.

For and on behalf of ABA Consulting Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

## Aba Standard Scope And Limitations

This report has been prepared to provide guidance on the structural condition of the property.

We have only inspected and reported upon the cracks within the property, as instructed by the client.

The report is based upon a visual inspection of those areas of the property that were readily accessible at the time of the inspection.

It is not normal practice to remove internal finishes, lift carpets or move furniture etc. As such, comments cannot be made on those parts of the structure that were inaccessible or hidden from view at the time of the inspection.

We have limited our report to the most important aspects as stated in the text.

The report does not provide a checklist of all repairs and improvements that might be desirable.

Our inspection did notinclude:-

1. The excavations of any trial holes to establish the depth of foundations and
bearing strata.
2.
Inspection of non-structural items such as doors, door frames, windows, floor,
wall and ceiling finishes, other than where they are relevant to structural
movement.
3.
We have not inspected any services such as electric, gas, water and drainage.
4.
We have not inspected those parts of the structure, which were covered,
unexposed or inaccessible and we are therefore unable to report that such parts
of the property are free from defect.
This report is for the private and confidential use of the client for whom it is prepared.

Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number: 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009

## Appendix A Photographs

•
•
Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number. 5858
Structural Appraisal Date: May 2009
Mount Pleasant, Roach Road, Upper Hulme Job Number. 5858
Structural Appraisal Dale: May 2009