My bungalow had been in continuous lawful residential use for 56 years at the time I purchased it in 1984.

But a central thrust of the Council’s argument as to why they demolished my bungalow was that it had ceased to enjoy residential user status. Confirmation of the importance of this point to the Council’s position is to be found in a letter from Mike Dawson, the Chief Planning Officer, who in a letter to me dated 11^th April 2002, stated:

But there is conclusive evidence proving that the residential use was lawful and therefore exempt from the action, which Dover District Council carried out. 

In a letter dated 8^th October 1984, the Council's Director of Legal and Administrative Services, Lesley Cumberland, confirmed that the Council were not saying that residential user rights had been abandoned:

Conclusive evidence, which disproves Michael Dawson's incorrect statement, is also contained within the Planning Inspectorate's decision letter dated 30^th November 2000. The Planning Inspector, Richard W. Pratt, states:

“A bungalow was built on the site in about 1928, and remained in use as a dwelling house up to the time of the appellant’s acquisition of the land in 1984. Following extensive works to the bungalow, an enforcement notice was issued in 1985, alleging the construction of a new dwelling”.......................“I accept that, at that time, the residential use of the building would have been lawful, because it pre-dated the Appointed Day, 1 July 1948".

 

Further evidence that disproves Michael Dawson's incorrect statement comes from the Council's own Professional Standards Investigator. Following a detailed investigation into my complaint he  stated in his report at section 6.22:

"It is my view based on the contemporary evidence of neighbours, the finding of the planning inspector in November 2000 and the statement made by the Director of Planning and Administrative Services in her letter of 8^th October 1984, that at the time residential user rights had not been abandoned and indeed existed"

 

The Professional Standards Investigator provided yet further proof of the lawful residential use when he stated:

"There is independent evidence that the bungalow was used for residential purposes from 1934 to the summer of 1982....................................
"Taking into account the Planning Inspectors findings in November 2000, the Head of Legal Services advice to  the complainant’s solicitor in her letter of 8^th October 1984, the evidence provided by the next door neighbour and the undisputed evidence that between June 25^th 1984 and 31^st July 1989 the complainant and his family lived at the Oaks, it is my view that there is a record of residential use of the site from 1928 to 31^st July 1989"

 

The Investigator concluded:  

After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice. 
This was maladministration.

The deeds show that my bungalow was constructed in 1928 and this is confirmed in written evidence from the late George Kirby of Chalksole Farm, Warren Lane who remembered the property being built. Mr Kirby was a member of Alkham Parish Council for 45 years, 30 years as its Chairman.

Mr Kirby, who farmed the land adjoining my property, also gave written evidence, along with other neighbours, that my bungalow was lived in from 1928 until 1981 albeit for the latter few years for holiday periods and at weekends. However, even if only used latterly  for holiday accommodation, planning law confirms that this would still constitute a residential use.

Mr and Mrs Pickard and their daughter lived in the bungalow from 1934 until 1956 and rented the property from a Mr Pearce. In 1956 the Pickards moved out and the new tenant, Mr Gibbs, moved in and lived there until 1967 at which time Miss Dickinson purchased the bungalow. 

Miss Dickinson lived there until 1981, although latterly only at weekends and holiday times. According to the neighbours Miss Dickinson was slightly eccentric and for one thing she painted the bungalow pink!

It is absolutely clear that at the time I purchased my bungalow it benefited from lawful residential use and there is no doubt that the residential use had not been abandoned. This guaranteed me certain basic legal rights, which the Council have wrongfully deprived me of.

It is apparent that both the Council's legal department and planning department were fully aware of the lawful residential status of my property. Despite that, they went ahead with their intended action under the pretext that the residential use had ceased and in doing so deceived both the Planning Committee and the Planning Inspectorate with the result that my bungalow was unlawfully demolished.

How it all Started    Home               Abandonment