June 2023
Lawful Use Certificate Application.
68A Harold St Grimsby DN32 7NQ has been used as retail and class B1 which is today’s equivalent of class E for over 10 year from the date of this application.
When any reference is made to the retail activity of 68A Harold street, this is made as Display and Sale on the premises where a customer can walk into the premises pick up items off a shelf, pay at counter and walk away.
Here we are not discussing the incorporation of several former business use classes into the new Class E because this is clear to the planners. When we mention class E in the past we make reference to one of those use classes which has now been incorporated into class E. We will rarely make reference to the old use classes for simplicity.
The purpose of this application is to assert the lawful use of the building in question within the remit of Class E thorough the established continuous use and the passage of time without any planning enforcement action. The last planning application was in 1978 and this was approved as storage B8 of antiques, as we will see this use had been clearly long obsolete as the use was changed in the 1980s. As we will see the evidence shows that the antiques shop used the premises as a retail unit and it was their only shop. Also proof of that is presented in Annex (2). This application of change of use to class B8 was made and approved as 45 years ago (at the time of writing). The building was then converted into a retail store of second hand furniture, antiques and various items from the mid 1980s onward The building continued its already established use as Retail of various good including vehicle parts and other uses within the scope of today’s Class E. No sales of the entire vehicles only sales of vehicle parts and accessories.
As we will see the whole property had been used within the Scope of Class E use for over the past 10 years continuously and no planning enforcement had ever been in place during this period. Additionally there had been no planning control enforcement for the past 45 years since the last planning application was approved in 1978. Therefore all terms for our application approval not only are met but exceeded.
The above are the legal grounds in which the certificate of lawful use is sought. In short we are invoking the 10 year rule in absence of planning enforcement.
Use history of 68A Harold Street and the historical change to today’s Class E Use.
The last planning application was in 1978 with the approval for class B8. This is clearly obsolete as we will see all throughout this report. First of all, not many councils have records of planning applications dating back more than 20 or 30 years making the established use of the property its material use independent of what the last approved planning application was at any point in time in the past as long as this use was in force more than 10 years prior (and the change of use was uninterrupted for over 10 years without planning enforcement in that given period). Several properties have no planning history and in those cases the planning use is established based on its most recent lawful use, and this is our case given how far back the last approved planning application goes (45 years) this is clearly our case.
The intention behind the 10 year rule is exactly to resolve the issue of outdated planning use of buildings that over long period of time have changed use without triggering a planning enforcement and (hence not causing real concerns to the community), while allowing the correct established use to be duly legalised. This is exactly the case of 68A Harold Street because the last planning permission was in 1978 (change of use to B8). Use B8 is completely out of place and it has nothing to do with the material long established use of the property.
In this particular case it is very clear that a planning application granted over 45 years prior, not only is it no longer relevant but also the material use of the property changed to Class E over 30 years earlier (in the 1980s). As in this case, the last planning application granted is now clearly irrelevant because its current use has been established for over 30 years, Moreover the class use B8 is now completely irrelevant to the use of this building and detrimental to the area.
In the absence of any recent planning application being granted within the past 10 years (in this case, the last was in 1978, 45 years ago) it is reasonable to rely on the established use of the property to determine the material use of the property under a planning stand point.
As we will see the use of the building evolved naturally into class E over the years. This process started in the 1980s and was already well established in the 1990s as seen with Bell Antiques use of the premises as a retail facility in Annex (2). They transitioned into class E and used the premises as retail store. Additionnlay it seems that the retail store (bell antiques) was also engaged in light industrial processes to fix their merchandise, former class B1(c) use.
Bell antiques had their only premises throughout their trading history in 68A Harold Street. Therefore it is only natural that they used these premises as a retail store especially since, not only was it their only facility but at the time there was no option of effective online commerce. As we know for any business to survive it needs sales, and 68A Harold Street was their only premises. Those sales took s place from the premises 68A Harold Street which was:
- centrally located
- in a residential area with plenty of footfall for its sales operations from their store in 68A Harold Street
- 68A Harold Street was their only premises, therefore they could not have sold their merchandise from any other facility
- Additionally the layout of 68A Harold Street and the visible frontage of the building from Harold street made it and still makes it today, an ideal retail location.
When the new ownership of the premises took place (in 2007) a planning application was made to change of use to class B1, however as discussed at length the use class was already changed from B8 and was very well established at that time already.This was due to the passage of time because the use changed in the 1980s. That planning application was rightfully withdrawn because it was unnecessary due the fact the material use had already changed and was well established through the passage of time to a more suitable use business class today incorporated into class E. The new owner at the time of the application made in 2007 for change of use was not aware of the length of the established use of the premises as retail Class E but after he became aware of the overwhelming evidence he rightfully withdrew his application because it was not necessary due to the long already established use of the premises at the time.
The Evidence of the established use through passage of time.
For the purpose of this application it has to be only proven the continuous use Of the premises over the space of ten years from the date of the application because no planning enforcement has ever taken place.
The evidence below demonstrate how in the last ten years the building has been used as Class E, in particular retail (continuous use) and light industrial B1(c).
Evidence 1
Managing Agent (Lovelle Bacons Chartered Surveyors) Witness Statement. Annex 1. This alone is a very strong evidence because this is a signed statement from the party who had material control over the use type of the premises since 2010. The picture of the building shows the sign of the managing company (Lovelle Bacons Chartered Surveyors). This signature had been captured electronically using Cognitoforms.com the signature is witnessed. This evidence alone shall be deemed sufficient gor the purposes of out application of lawful use, however further evidence is provided below.
Evidence 2
Various Witness Statements asserting the material use of the premises over the span of 10 years as Class E. All the statements below were captured electronically using cognitoforms.com
Witness statement all presented in annex 5
1 Beibei Liu, Civil Servant , Local Authority Officer for Leicestershire council. Master Business Degree From Strathclyde University
2 Yangping Sui, Financial Auditor residing in Grimsby
3 Glen Saxon Retired
4 Amanda Saxon Carer
5 Tony Saxon Builder
6 Timothy Saxon
Evidence is provided by pictures verified by witness statements as well as the very state of the building including the current use as vehicle parts sale unit. The witness statements not only confirm the use of the building but also provides picture evidence of the state of the building since 2010. In 2010 the sign Jaylee Motors was displayed on the the front of the property. Jaylee Motors engaged in the retail sale of motoring spare parts, this is further proof of the use of the premises as retail the then equivalent to class E today. The retention of the sign Jaylee motors today is further evidence of its established use, of course the sign would be changed if the use were different. This sign was present on both buildings and it is used for the same purpose as retail of motoring parts. Retail use of vehicles spare parts accessories etc. Motor parts retail, no car sales or vehicle repairs. The picture evidence alone is strong proof of the use of the unit as retail (Class E use). The proof of the picture date is done through witness statement, therefore the witness statement are for proving the use as well as proving the date of those pictures.
Evidence 3
Sworn witness statement presented in Annex 3.
The scope of this sworn witness statement was not to witness the use of the premises, but it was in connection with a prosecution case in 2018, therefore this chartered surveyor did not focus his/her attention on the use of the promises at the time of compilation of this sworn witness statement. Any reference to the use of the premises is vague because of the different purpose of the document. In other words, the wording in reference to the use of the premises is vague and not detailed, because ascertaining the class use of the property was not the scope of this sworn witness statement. However, this document proves clearly the use of the premises was not B8 but it was within the scope of class B1. In particular former class B1(c) and class E since December 2017 (as per term of use of the building as seen in annex 1).
Once again please note that this witness statement is sworn, it was produced in 2018, and it is completely independent from this application. The purpose of this witness statement of 2018 is in connection with a prosecution case back in 2018 and not this application. It is also important to emphasize that the witness who produced this document was likely not aware of the planning application made in 1978. Upon the independent assessment of this Chartered surveyor the use of the building was regarded, in point 4, as (light) “industrial/workshop” (in a residential area) (Class B1c). It is important to emphasise that also the chartered surveyor states in this sworn document that the unit is located in a residential area (in point 5). The word “light” and “in a residential area” were omitted in this sworn statement due to the fact the the purpose of this statement was different from the assertion of the material class use of the property.
By all means it is important to note that the retail use of the premises was the predominant one, and continuous throughout time (as demonstrated in the evidence presented) however, once again, the purpose of this witness statement in annex 3 was not to establish the use of the premises, but it was in connection with a prosecution case in 2018. It is likely that the events that lead to that prosecution case, at that time caused the building to be reconfigured temporarily so that the Chartered Surveyor focused her/ his attention on the light industrial use Class B1(c) which may have been more apparent at that particular time due to extraordinary events that led to the prosecution case.
There must not be any confusion in connection with the use of the building, this was B1(c) and not B2, because clear reference, in the terms of use of the promises by Lovelle Bacons Chartered Surveyors (annex 1), is made only to the type of activities allowed as per definition of former Cass B1c. As seen the use as workshop/ light industrial needed not to have any impact on the residential neighborhood (hence within the remit of Class B1c). As we will see the lack of complaints from the residential neighbourhood demonstrates the same point.
It has to be reminded that the continuous use of the building is retail. The reference to “Motor trade” in point 16 is rather vague but this is in connection with retail sales activity: “motor (parts) trade” which is the remit of Class E. Not only is this consistent with all the other evidence presented in this document but it is also consistent with the terms of use of the building. Once again the reason for the omission of the word “trade” is the purpose of this sworn statement which is not to state the use of the building, as pointed out several times above.
To summmarise this document proves the use of the building as former B1(c) and as retail , Class E. It also proves how the building was not used as B8, of course.
Evidence 4
In Annex 4, Statement By the Chartered Engineer Antonino Russo. This is from a Chartered Engineer with over 50 years experience in international building appraisals.
Evidence 5
Photographic evidence proving the use of the building as a retail store prior to 2010 by Bell Antiques. Note this is not strictly necessary but it does provide evidence of the very long established use of the building as retail class E. Annex 2
Evidence 6
The use as B8 not only is obsolete (not in use for over 30 years) and not relevant to the building but as seen, not compatible with the Residential Area. Not compatible with the size of the Road, not compatible with the layout of the building, not compatible withe the Entrance of the building and against a good number of planning policies the Areas. This is explained in detail in “Unsuitability of B8 as use class for the building and unsuitability in the residential area.” and “Unsuitability of the building layout and Unsuitability of Harold Street to accommodate the Modern Class B8 and B2 Class use building.”
In case there might be confusion between the Sporadic use of part of the building as light industrial B1c which was not continuous over the years (to be clear not B2 use) please take into consideration all the declarations (in particular the declaration of the managing Agent as of the use of the building), and also please refer to “Unsuitability of the building layout and Unsuitability of Harold Street to accommodate the Modern Class B8 and B2 Class use building.”
All the evidence proves the use of the premises as class E not only continuously over the past 10 years but beyond the 10 years requirement. We deem the evidence submitted overwhelming to grant the certificate of lawful use as Class E.
Therefore given that
1 no planning enforcement had been carried out in the past 10 years and longer.
2 all the documentation presented here constitutes compelling evidence which prove the continuous use over the span of more that 10 years of uses all consistent with CLASS E.
3 also further evidence, including the layout of the premises, the entrance unsuitable for LGVs, Size of Harold Street, Lack of LGV parking space. Impossibility of maneuvering LGVs backwards and more, shows the unsuitability of the building as Class B8.
4the lack of complaints from the adjacent neighbouring residential area also shows that if any light industrial activities they where consistent with the definition of Class B1(c). Also as seen these light industrial uses were sporadic in nature and therefore not continuous and clearly in line with Class B1(c) as light industrial in a residential area.
5 The premises were used as a retail unit also in the 1990s and 2000s as demonstrated. The use that Bell Antiques made of the premises as retail is clear due to the evidence still available on public records.
This application meets all the tests to obtain lawful use certificate for its current actual and historical use for over 10 years as required by the applicable legislation.
Overview to Building location and its scope
Central Location.
The central location of the building renders the building best suited as a Class E rather than a distribution centre. A central location has an inherent demand for retail facilities in the area due to customer demand and footfall. In particular the central location of these 68A Harold Street offers easy central access, visibility and footfall ideal for retail use. A class E is suitable for a residential area instead of an industrial class B8 or B2 which would nowadays be out of place and create nuisance in a residential area and against several planning policies as we will see later. Therefore as we will see extensively later on, Harold Street is not the area suitable for a B8 or B2 building for several reasons.
Residential Area. The residential Area creates a natural Retail type of demand that rendered this building suitable for this class use and naturally evolve into class E use. As we will see a residential area should not have any building of either Class use B8 or B2, which are clearly heavy industrial in nature and usually confined to purpose built business parks. Not only is this common sense but clear planning policy as we will see later on.
Front Visibility in the Residential Area. The frontage of the unit is very visible, prominent, in a residential area and approachable from Harold Street. This makes 68A Harold Street very good for attracting attention from the local passer-by (local foot fall and local drivers).
Layout of the building. As discussed later on the layout of the building renders it suitable to the class E and not B8 or B2. These two heavy industrial classes (B8 and B2) require open space and very high ceilings, this is because for heavy industrial use an open internal space is paramount for carrying out normal heavy industrial usage of the industrial operations. The current ceilings heights of the ground floor and top first floor make the building structure and layout NOT suitable for the modern use as B8 and B2. This also renders the building unsuitable as sui-generis like car repair shop etc because, for example, a car lifter ramp cannot be accommodated inside for normal car repair. Also many other tools and heavy manufacturing machinery cannot be accommodated into the building for the same reason.
Suitability of the established material use (of 68A Harold Street) as class E to the Residential neighbourhood.
The unit is clearly located in the middle of a residential Area as seen in the map presented with the application. Additionally this can also be verified by consulting any independent map record the council holds. This is self evident given the location of the premises.The building is a commercial unit surrounded by residential dwelling houses class C3. Therefore its most suitable use as a commercial unit in a residential area is Class E.Additionally according to planning policy this area in Harold street is reserved for residential use, therefore a business class use suitable for this area is class E.
Historically the houses surrounding 68a Harold Street have been strictly class c3 for over 50 years. The absence of planning enforcement is further evidence of the correct Classification as class E as of its long established use. In fact if it were used as class B2 it would have caused nuisance to the residential neighbourhood and therefore triggered a planning enforcement.
The historical use of the premises 68a Harold Street had been as a retail unit demonstrably for over the past 30 years. Due to the information we have the retail use spans for even longer than 30 years. The layout is a complete open space with exception of a relatively small office area it has been ideal for retail use (its historical and current established use). Additionally its central location in a residential area made it ideal as a retail unit.
Form the planing History of the building we can see that the last application was for a change of use to B8 made in 1978. After that the last application was in 2007 for a change of use from B8 into a business use class more suitable for this residential area was withdrawn in 2008. The reason behind the withdrawal of the application for change of use in 2008 was due to the already long established use over time of the premises as a business class suitable for this area. Evidence and searches in connection with this building prove the use as a Retail/ light industrial B1c/ workshop B1c for well over 30 years continuously and not just the 10 year rule as per legislation requirement, therefore the criteria for established use are exceedingly met they were in force even before 2008. This shall be more than enough passage of time without planning enforcement to establish its lawful use.
Also as a note about class E this is clearly compatible for the location of the building 68A Harold Street since the building in question is in a residential area. A B2 use of the building would be incompatible with the area as it could cause disturbance to the neighbouring residential dwelling class c3. Therefore it is clear that the use as B2 would have not been in line with the residential area the building finds itself in. A B2 use would have been not well suited with this residential neighbourhood and complaints would have arisen in connection with it over the span of over 40 years. Hence over the span of 40 years a class B2 use would have very likely triggered a planning enforcement. Therefore if over 40 years use there had not been planning enforcement it is clear that any past light workshop element use of the building was in line with B1(c) class and therefore in line and symbiotic with the residential nature of the neighborhood. Also the use as class E is more suitable for the residential area as it does avoid the increased traffic of a storage and distribution centre that would be located inconveniently in this residential area.
Unsuitability of Class B8 use for the building in Harold Street and unsuitability of B8 use in a residential area.
As we will see here Modern Class B8 Buildings are located in business parks and they have multiple entrances for LGVs (Large Goods Vehicles), and not only one entrance like 68A Harold Street has.
It is clear that Class use B8 (Storage/distribution centre) is an unsuitable purpose in a central location and in the heart of a residential area. A potential Class B8 use of a building of the scale of 68A Harold Street would cause heavy High load trucks (LGVs) to constantly access the building through Harold Street. This would be detrimental to the area in several ways. The area can handle normal traffic but not heavy high load traffic on a constant basis. Moreover if 68A Harold Street were used as class B8, the non availability of parking space for long high weight trucks (LGVs) would make the area not functional and clearly cause issues to the neighborhood.
The old application for B8 in 1978 could have been suitable to a storage unit 45 years ago, however nowadays, given that storage units of this scale are used by highly efficient and busy fulfillment centres, the use of 68A Harold Street as B8 would make it detrimental to the area. This likely was not the case in 1978 (45 years ago), given the radical different nature of storage unit usage and the type of commerce which at the time was mostly localised. What happened in the 1980s is that the use of the premises 68A Harold Street naturally evolved from storage to retail (See Annex 2) and the retail use of the premises took over completely in the 1990s, as this was the best use of the premises given its central location, the residential area it found itself in and the internal layout. The lack of noise complaints and lack of planning enforcements demonstrated the suitability of the site as its long established current use as class E. Additionally (by definition) former Class B1c and Class E in general, are of low noise as intended to be a business class use to be located in a residential area. Class B8 and B2 on the contrary are meant to be confined in a business industrial complex away from residential dwellings class C3.
The demand for warehouses in 1978 and their type of use, configuration etc have changed dramatically due to the way technology has evolved. It is clear that the use class B8 is obsolete for 68A Harold Street ( in fact it has been used and class E for over 30 years). Class B8 use is unsuitable for the residential area in Harold street , size of the road, the overall configuration of the building and the entrance of the building is too small (LGV loads cannot enter the building). Additionally 68A Harold Street has only one entrance that cannot accommodate for LGVs and it is not suitable also due to the fact that the building cannot have multiple entrances as modern class B8 buildings in industrial estates have.
Warehouses and distributions centres are now built well away from a residential area. They are located in business parks grouped with other class B8 or class B2 buildings.
Modern B8 class buildings:
1 are built for purpose with the most efficient internal layout and configuration (whereas 68A Harold Street was never built for this purpose and impossible to adapt to become competitive with modern industrial B8 warehouses in an industrial location)
2 have appropriate roads sizes for LGVs to access them (68A Harold Street has not appropriate roads to handle the normal LGVs traffic that a class B8 building requires)
3 have roads designed to handle the weight of LGVs. (Harold street and the surrounding roads are not designed to handle the constant traffic of LGVs)
4 have space for LGVs parking. (Harold street does not have any suitable allocated parking for LGVs)
5 The Size of their roads are adequate to accommodate these large vehicles. (The roads in Harold street area hardly large enough to let LGV vehicles through)
6 their access roads are designed to handle the heavy constant LGVs traffic. Normal roads deteriorate fast if used by LGV constantly. Roads that have to handle LGV traffic on a regular basis are built for purpose so that they do not deteriorate too quickly. The design specifications that are required for any new roads or existing road repair state the type of load the road have to be able to handle on a daily basis without major wear and tear. Harold Street and the surrounding roads are not specified or built to handle LGV loads, as a consequence constant LGV traffic would lead to fast read deterioration.
7 Each entrance to a class B8 building is made for easy access of LGVs. The entrance is appropriate for off loading and loading the LGVs (68A Harold street does not have an entrance that can accommodate the entrance of a LGV load/trailer)
8 Are built with multiple entrances for LGVs, whereas 68A Harold street cannot have multiple entrances, it only has one that cannot be modified to allow LGV load entrance.
9 have space for LGVs maneuvering. On the contrary due to the entrance configuration of 68A Harold street no maneuvering back into the building is possible unless major works are carried out and the front small building is partly or completely demolished. This is because the building was not constructed to accommodate a modern Class B8 use building.
10 the ceiling heights of modern B8 and B2 use building have ceiling over 5 meters high. This is because high ceiling allow efficient storage (in case of clas use B8) and manufacturing flexibility (in case of class use B2). This is not the case for 68A Harold Street because the ceiling height varies between 3 to 3.5 meters which does not allow for competitive storage (Class B8) and competitive heavy industrial use (Class B2)
11 are built within business parks and never placed in a residential cental area like 68A Harold Street. The advantage of a B8 building to be located in business parks is the easy access to the essential infrastructure of the business park itself. A potential B8 use of 68A Harold street, not only would it make it detrimental to the residential area but it would make it uncompetitive with built for purpose modern B8 buildings in business parks.
12 are built according to planning policy, whereas an hypothetical B8 or B2 use for 68A Harold Street is against a number of planning policies as we will see later on.
As we will see no current planning policy would favour a new application for change of use of 68A Harold Street to class B8 or B2 in a residential area.
The entrances of class B8 building are also made to at the right height and with ramps so that the forklifts can easily drive into the LGV loads to efficiently load and offload the goods. Several entrances to the B8 building are made into the building for efficient loading and offloading.
As seen in the picture above sometimes the LGV loads (trailers) need to remain parked for a while at one or more entrances of the B8 building in order to allow time to load and offload goods. This obviously would not be possible in 68A Harold street because if a LGV trailer where to offload its cargo this way it would block Harold street completely (would block both lanes). Of course as mentioned above, not only would it not be possible to maneuver back the trailer into the building but there is no space for the trailer to fit between the two buildings and the entrance to the building itself is too small. The main and only entrance to 68A Harold Street does not have enough head height for the trailer to enter the building. Hence it would not be possible for the building to function appropriately as a class B8 building even after the demolition of the front building and after major structural works to alter the entrance to the building. This is because it is impossible to have multiple entrances to the building additionally the LGV trailers would not be able to park into the building without either partly or completely blocking Harold street during loading and offloading of the LGV trailer.
Warehouses are nowadays mainly used by internet companies and other large corporate entities that handle high volume of business which naturally leads to a constant heavy traffic with Very High Weight long trucks going to site and parking close to the site on a daily basis. Also these high weight vehicles have to park onsite and enter the load directly into the premises for a normal storage unit modern operation. The use of 68A Harold Street building as class B8 nowadays would also be incompatible to the area and very likely not only to cause nuisance to this dense residential neighbourhood but additionally block traffic (due to the use of LGVs needing to access the site and park in the vicinity).
The ceiling height of 68A Harold street on the ground floor and top floor are not sufficiently high to accommodate the normal use of modern B8 building. The overall design of the building does not make it suitable for class B8 use.
Unsuitability of the building (68A harold Street) layout and Unsuitability of Harold Street itself to accommodate the Modern Class B8 and B2 Class use building.
Class B8 and B2 should be confined to industrial estate areas (business parks) not placed in the middle of a residential area. Additionally the opening of the frontage property is not suitable for the use class B8 of modern storage and distribution centres because it would require major structural works and demolition of the front small building to render it suitable for the entrance of LGVs distribution trucks. As it is evident from the front picture of 68A Harold Street the only entrance to the building is not high enough to accommodate the usual LGV load . Additionally the width between the two buildings 68 Harold Street (the class C3 dwelling) and the front small building att he front of 68A Harold Street, is not wide enough to accommodate an LGV trailer. Therefore in order to allow the entrance of the LGV trailer the part or whole demolition of the front small building of 68A Harold Street would be required. This would be deemed undesirable by a planning stand point.
However even then (after major demolitions and structural works) the building would still fail to be competitive with modern distribution centres and if a use class B8 were adopted as explained earlier this would cause major detriment to the residential area. Additionally the building has only one entrance and not multiple entrances as B8 distribution centres have. The impossibility to have multiple entrances for the LGV load makes this building uncompetitive and not suitable compared against class most B8 buildings in business parks, which in turn have multiple entrances and easy access to LGVs plus ample parking for LGVs.
The LGV truck load (trailers) could not be left parked outside the premises anywhere in Harold street, or in the vicinity as it would impede normal traffic as it would block one lane even if it were parked on the pavement.
Also even if major works were done to the entrance of 68A Harold Street to make the entrance suitable for the LGV truck load entrance, the backwards maneuvering of the LGV load truck would not be possible (due to the size of Harold Street) and hence the truck load would not be able to enter the premises anyway. If the truck load cannot enter the building this renders building not suitable and noncompetitive for B8 use in the open market place. Additionally, even if it were possible (and it is not), it would not be possible to leave the LGV trailers reverse parked (for offloading and loading of goods) at the entrance because they would partly or wholly block Harold street.
After all, companies when it comes to class B8 building are not looking for a central Location in a residential area (destined to class E as the established use of 68A Harold Street) but instead for a building that can be easily accessed and built for purpose. Unfortunately 68A Harold Street is neither accessible by LGVs, nor fit for purpose, not does it have suitable LGV parking, moreover if it were used as industrial class B8 building it would be detrimental to the residential area it is in.
In case of 68A Harold Street the building is not built for purpose and the road size does not accommodate this type of heavy industrial use B8. The unsuitability of the premises for a normal storage and distribution centre use is further indication that such use as such would have been impractical and raised concerns by the residential community.
The unsuitability of the building for class B8 is further proof that its material use is more in line with the requirements of the area, the layout of the building which are suitable for its existing use as a retail unit and are all uses within class B1.
Therefore the old use granted in 1978 as a B8 not only would be detrimental to the the area and an impractical use of the premises nowadays 45 years after the application was approved. But since class B8 use would have long been impractical for the occupying business and detrimental to the community, it is only natural that its material use changed in the 1980s to B1 a more suitable class to the residential area the building finds itself in. Additionally if a change of use of the building would be made to either B8 or B2 today this should not be seen favourably and resisted by the planners given all the above, especially the fact that B8 and B2 are industrial uses which should be confined into an purely industrial area and not in the backyard of class c3 terraced houses where the 68a a Harold Street building is situated. Also as we will see below the use of 68A Harold Street as B8 or B2 would be against a good number of planning policies currently in force.
Use of 68A Harold Street as class B8 and B2 against current planning policies.
On the contrary a class Class E is suitable to be incorporated within a residential area, where 68A Harold Street finds itself in. In fact class E, in the spirit of the law, was thought to be a class use compatible with a residential area and therefore to be placed within a residential area to serve the needs of the residential area itself. However both B2 and B8 are class uses for heavy industrial purposes (nowadays confined to business parks) and unsuitable for a residential area like Harold Street. As we have already seen, this is one of the several reasons for the use of the building to naturally evolve into Class E use over time in the 1980s and its B1 use was already established in the 1990s. Despite this natural change of use, in the 1980s, this was no cause for concerns over the years by the residential neighbourhood. This is because Class E are meant to be a suitable business class to be placed in a residential area and to also serve the residential it is in.
Also Class E is suitable for a central location like Harold Street from a planning policy view point. In Harold street and close vicinity not only there is no need for Class B2 and B8 use (Heavy industrial reserved for business parks) but this heavy industrial use would be detrimental to this residential area for several reasons some of which we have already explored. B2 and B8 are also clearly not compatible with the current planning policies due to their nature as seen below.
First of all according to council records and planning policy the Harold Street area where the building is located has residential Zoning and not business park zoning. Evidence of this can be brought forward should it be necessary. Business park zoning would be required for either a B8 or B2 use building. It should be clear that in a residential zoned area either Class C3 class C4 or business class E would be acceptable and not industrial use like B8 or B2.
Notwithstanding all the above class B2 or B8 would be against local planning policy 22
Policy 22
Good design in new developments
1. A high standard of sustainable design is required in all developments. The Council will expect
the design approach of each development to be informed by:
A. a thorough consideration of the particular site’s context (built and natural environment,
and social and physical characteristics);
68A Harold Street is not a good design for the Class B2 and Class B8 use as seen in previous sections, this is as seen due to its internal layout, the residential area it is in, the size of the Main Road, lack of LGV parking, impossibility to maneuver back the LGVs loads and other matters already discussed at length in “Unsuitability of B8 as use class for the building and unsuitability in the residential area.” and ” Unsuitability of the building layout and Unsuitability of Harold Street itself to accommodate the Modern Class B8 and B2 Class use building.”
Most of all class B8 or B2 use would not be in the correct site’s context, because 68A Harold street is literally surrounded by Class C3 dwellings and in an overall mostly residential neighbourhood.
Therefore maintaining the building in its current correct established use Class E, clearly is in line with policy 22 point 1A. Clearly policy 22 does favour use Class of the building as E and clearly disfavours use class B8 and B2 in the context of the residential area the building is in.
A use B8 or B2 would also be against policy 32.
Quote:
Policy 32
Energy and low carbon living
1. Where appropriate, the principles of the energy hierarchy
Generally, from a planning stand point Class E building is allocated within a residential area and it is supposed to serve the area reducing travel to those services that Class E provides within its scope. If a Class E building would not be in the residential area the average travel of the residents would be longer defeating the low carbon living initiative of policy 32. For example it is more practical to have a retail fancily you can access next door instead of a distribution centre that does not serve the residential neightbourhood and the residents have to travel further to access similar retail units which would otherwise be close.
In our specific case, the appropriate class E (in current use and established use) of 68A Harold Street reduces the average travel of the residents in the vicinity of the building as Class E offers the services required by the residents , Whereas a class B8 or B2 would.
Use Class B2 and B8 would not be of use to the residents of the area. Therefore the residents would require extra travel to reach the same types of services (offered by Class E) necessary to them. Therefore increasing the average day to day journeys as it would deprive the area of a building class use E which is required by the residents anyway. In fact, if the building use would bot be class E, the residents would increase their average travel to access the same services offered within the scope of Class E further away form the area. Also as you can see from the map, the area does indeed benefit from its current class use E as without 68a Harold Street in current class E use the area would be deprived of Class E services with no exchange for new residential housing. Therefore the class use B8 and/or B2 would increase the average travel of residents to access their services and therefore decrease the efficiency and convenience of the area blatantly against the low energy living policy 32.
Policy 36
Promoting sustainable transport
1. To reduce congestion, improve environmental quality and encourage more active and healthy
lifestyles, the Council will support measures that promote more sustainable transport choices.
Where appropriate, proposals should seek to:
A. focus development which generates significant movements in locations where the need
to travel will be minimised;
B. prioritise pedestrian and cycle access to and within the site;
1 Class B8 increase congestion due to the need of High Weight Trucks (LGVs) to access the area on a daily basis. This causes the road to be blocked by LGVs which need to park on the road in order to off load their cargo into the building. The LGV Load cannot enter the building due to the width of the street that does not facilitate backwards maneuvering and the size of the entrance.
On the contrary the retention of a Class E building as per its existing established use decrease congestion by comparison avoiding the use of the of high Load Long trucks (LGVs) accessing the area on a daily basis. Therefore the retention of Class E would have the usual normal vehicle parking and traffic in the area.
As seen the possible use of the building as B8 or B2 not only is not suitable for the area but goes against several current planning policies therefore should a application for change of use from current existing use class E to B8 or B2 it would be recommended for refusal on several grounds, including several planning policies.
The current class E Classification Attracts Highly Skilled professionals to the area.
Notwithstanding the fact that the use as Class E has been amply proven It is important to emphasise the fact that its use as such attracts highly skilled professionals to the area, increasing the overall standards, balancing the community, decreasing crime rate, improving the residential area as a whole.
This is because use class E includes services that attract more employment and higher skill sets into the area in comparison with class B8 use. This is because B8 and B2 use take advantage of more automation and large scale operations requires less personnel and of lesser expertise. Modern storage and distribution centres are relying on storage management system and automation which all requires less personnel and less expertise.
A percentage of the personnel who serve class B8 building are LGVs drivers who are transient in nature. The work required in class B8 building is usually of lower skill levels to the requirements of a Class E building due to the types of services offered to the residential neighbourhood.
Therefore the retention of the building within class E attracts talent and more highly skilled population in the area which would be promoting regeneration as well as business and residential investment in the area>Hence by default c significantly contributing to the regeneration of the area , which deems to be clearly in need of it.
Attracts highly skilled labour into the area and the city centre. Therefore the increase in skilled labour in the area decrease crime and deprivation in the area and the city centre of Grimsby.
Class B8 building Type of employment:
-LGVs Drivers (transient to the area in nature)
-Forklift drivers.
-Packers Warehouse workers.
-Site Manager/Security.
Class E type of employment:
Offices (suitable to the residential area) Lawyers, Estate Agents, Secretaries, SMEs Startups, Technology companies, Sales professionals, Graduates, students, Scientists etc
Former Class B1(b) Postgraduates working in research.
Annexxed Documents.
Note about the electronic signatures, they are noways more widely used and legally recognised as legally valid see https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/electronic-signatures-are-valid-confirms-law-commission/
Annnex 1
Managing Agent(Chartered Surveyors) Statutory declaration. This signature had been captured electronically using cognito forms.
Signature captured by cognito forms, email confirmation of authenticity and confirmed by witness.
Annex 2
Prior to 2010 the premises where used as retail store by Bell antiques. The retail use started in the mid 1980s this building t was the their only shop.
As we can see from the screenshot Bell Antiques was operating a retail shop from Harold Street and this was prior to 2010. Retail was the materiel use of the premises even prior to 2010. Please note that 68A Harold Street was Bell Antiques only premises throughout their trading history. Therefore it is only natural that they used the premises as a retail store especially because not only was it their only facility but at the time there was no option of effective online commerce. Hence for the business to survive sales were needed which took s place from the premises 68A Harold Street. This building is centrally located and in a residential area with plenty of footfall to facilitate the business sales operations from their store in 68A Harold Street (Their only premises). This evidence is below and it may still still be found here https://www.alladdress.co.uk/company-address-phone-email-UK-online/second-hand-shops/2206986/bell-antiques-68a-harold-street-south-humberside-grimsby
Annex 3
Witness statement in connection with a prosecution case in 2018.
Annex 4
Here is the declaration and the proof of registration as a chartered engineer in Italy of Antonino Russo. Master Degree from University of Palermo, Italy. Below you can see proof of registration as a chartered engineer and his ID card document.
Annex 5
Declarations. All of these declaration signatures have been captured electronically using cognitoforms.com .
Leicestershire Local Authority Officer
Declaration from Auditor
Amanda Saxon
Glenn Saxon
Tony Saxon
Timothy Saxon