|
|
It became apparent that masons also infested the Sunderland Planning Authority. Carr had started to establish a smallholding next to our property by means of deceit. She falsely claimed that the smallholding occupied land that was part of a former farmyard. Miss Rawlings, a Planning Officer of the Sunderland Planning Department told me she had visited Carr's smallholding and had concluded the buildings on it had been there for years. The buildings had not in fact been there for years. If she had checked ordnance survey maps she would have seen that the site was never part of a former farmyard. Maybe by giving way to her mason masters, that was and remains a way of keeping her present position? Jan 3, 2000
City of Sunderland 16A, The Lyons,
Environmental Dept., Hetton-le-Hole,
Civic Centre, Tyne-Wear DH5 OHT.
Sunderland.
June 19 1997.
Your Ref: 97/00674/FUL
To Whom It May Concern.
I have been notified of the retrospective planning application submitted to the planning authority by Miss Shirley Carr, who presently resides at No. 16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne Wear, DH5 OHT. I include herein facts which I believe require serious consideration by the Development Control Committee. As I believe it is of relevance, I will give the background which is necessary to help detail the problems that we have already suffered in the past from the development started by Miss Carr in 1987, which has now resulted in her having to submit this retrospective planning application.
Background:
In 1987 Miss Carr and a former boyfriend, purchased 14 acres of land adjoining the southern boundary of our property No. 16a The Lyons. They then sited close to the boundary of our property a large residential caravan, on the land that they had purchased. They then occupied it. Previous to the siting of the caravan in 1987, there were no buildings on that land, and there had been no planning consent or planning application to allow the siting of the caravan, or its occupation by Miss Carr and a former boyfriend. There had not been any water or sewerage disposal facilities on the land where the caravan was sited.
Shortly afterwards, Miss Carr and the former boyfriend, commenced to erect various buildings, which included stables, barns, poultry houses, pig sty's, dog kennels and rabbit hutches. These were all built close to the boundary of our property.
When these buildings were put to use, we started to have problems with rodent infestation in the area. Miss Carr claimed in around 1988, that they did not require planning approval for the development. We also started to have problems with foul smells and animal noises coming from the development. In late 1989 we started to have additional problems from what was then being called "The Lyons Smallholding" with poultry and dogs straying from it into our gardens and destroying our vegetable garden, and that of our neighbours garden at No. 17.
In or around 1991, it became necessary to ask for the assistance of The Public Health Department when rodents were found to be digging out root crops from our vegetable garden, or gnawing at exposed parts of those crops. Such was the extent of the infestation problem, that when the rodent officer called to investigate our complaint, he drew an air pistol that he had with him for protection. He placed baits around the general area, but more substantially on Miss Carr's smallholding. Prior to that time, Miss Carr had rejected the idea of placing rodent bait on her smallholding, because she said the bait was very expensive.
In 1991, Miss Carr was seen to be throwing raw pigs flesh onto the ground for her dogs to feed upon, and she was also throwing down onto the ground, foodstuffs for her poultry to feed upon. My wife and I asked if she would try to avoid doing that, as it was a further cause which helped to sustain the rodent population. Miss Carr expressed her amusement that when she fed her livestock, the rodents too would come out to feed. She continued to feed her animals in that way.
We then started to have problems of smoke pollution from large fires that Miss Carr started, which was to burn waste straw and hay, which often contained animal excrement, further adding to the foul smells coming from the site. On at least one occasion our other neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. Manwaring had an intense argument with Miss Carr following smoke pollution into their home coming from a large fire burning on Miss Carr's development.
I also have video film evidence to show the smoke pollution coming from the smallholding, and would be happy to supply this for use, if required, in the consideration of this application. In 1991 Miss Carr allowed me to catch and destroy around one hundred of her hens which had started to breed wild around the area. This had added to our problems of noise pollution, as there were a considerable number of cockerels which would strike up with their calls at first light in the morning. It had became impossible to continue to cultivate our vegetable plot, due not only to the straying poultry, but also due to the continuance of rodent damage, and pollution by rodent droppings of any vegetables that survived destruction from Miss Carr's poultry.
In her planning application, Miss Carr claims that the land on which she commenced to establish the development of the smallholding, formed as part of the former farm yard which still exists to the west of what she terms as her "yard". Miss Carr's statement is untrue. At no time has her "yard" formed as part of that former farm yard. This can easily be established by reference to ordnance survey maps dated prior to Miss Carr's development. I had already shown Miss Rawlings that the ordnance survey map that we used in our discussion, contained no detail whatsoever of any buildings existing on that land prior to 1987. Miss Rawlings, of The Environmental Department, has been supplied with two affidavits, sworn in Sunderland County Court, which verify that prior to 1987, there were indeed no building on the area of Miss Carr's development, or as she describes, her "yard". That area had formed as part of the pasture land which presently adjoins it.
In 1995, following sustained problems of rodent infestation coming from Miss Carr's development, it was again necessary to request the assistance of the Public Health Department. A rodent officer again placed baits around the area and upon Miss Carr's smallholding. Later it was alleged by a public health officer that no evidence of rodents had been found following the laying of the test baits. The officer concerned in that matter later agreed that no one had returned to the site to see the result of the test baits, so his statement was effectively untrue.
This matter came to light when the rodent officer who had placed the test baits on Miss Carr's smallholding, confirmed that no one had returned to the smallholding to check them. He further confirmed that at the time he had placed the test baits on Miss Carr's smallholding, despite there having been very heavy rain and high winds at the time, he had in fact seen evidence of rodent infestation. This issue, and an issue arising from it, was subject of a letter to the Director of Public Health in 1995. This matter has not yet been concluded.
In 1991. when a former boyfriend of Miss Carr's parted company with her, she asked me to assist with a problem resulting in the way that she entered onto her 14 acres of land. Though her former boyfriend had been allowed to access the smallholding via the former farm yard to the west of the smallholding, after he deserted her, Miss Carr was not allowed to use that same access route. She then commenced to use the route which starts from the north side of Lyons Avenue.
That route became subject of dispute with the former owners of a section of land, that Miss Carr was including as part of her alleged right of way to gain access to her land. She asked me to assist with her problem when the owner of that land, told her that there was no right of way across their land. Miss Carr had alleged that her right of way had been established because the former owner of her 14 acre site, a Mr A. Stephenson, had sworn a statutory declaration stating that he had used the disputed land, starting from north of Lyons Avenue, for access purposes for in excess of twenty years, and therefore claimed he had acquired a right of way over that land by prescription. In fact, I am unaware of Mr Stephenson ever using that route, because he had an alternative route through the former farmyard of which he was then occupying it as a tenant of Lady Mary Bowes-Lyon.
On Miss Carr's behalf and request, I contacted a Mr Stafford who was then an agent for the estates owned by Lady Mary Bowes-Lyon. He told me that he was aware of Mr. Stephenson's statutory declaration that was used in an attempt to establish the right of way. He said that the declaration was not worth the paper upon which it was written, as he said Mr. Stephenson had been a tenant of Lady Mary Bowes-Lyon on that disputed land, and therefore could not claim a right of way by adverse use of that route, as against the owner, Lady Mary Bowes-Lyon. I informed Miss Carr of Mr Stafford's comments, but on occasions, she continued to use it, as she had no alternative suitable route onto her 14 acre site.
Afterwards, Miss Carr was party to a further dispute when she claimed that she owned other land adjoining hers, amounting to around one and a half acres, and grazed her horses on it. She also asked for my help in that dispute, but police established at that time, that the land had in fact not been owned by Miss Carr, but was owned by the former Bleanch's Coaches Ltd.
So the situation is that the access route to the smallholding which Miss Carr now applies for permission to "upgrade", is not part of the established access route to the smallholding which is subject to her present application.
I am not in a position to say whether Miss Carr has, or has not, since 1991, gained any formal right to use that section of land leading from the north end of Lyons Avenue as a way onto her land. I feel however, that it should be made clear, in the consideration of the application, that such formal right to use that part of the route which was subject to dispute in 1991, has been agreed by the owners of that land, that it can form part of the route of which Miss Carr's application applies.
Though Miss Carr requests in her application that she wishes to upgrade the existing access route surface, which I estimate will be in the region of a quarter of a mile in length. In fact, in the circumstances that I describe, there is no former recognised route such as a track, or pathway across the pasture land where she asks for permission to upgrade the existing access surface.
Ordnance survey maps will confirm this fact. So in effect, I consider therefore, that Miss Carr's application to upgrade the existing access surface, is really not to upgrade it, but is in effect an application to create it.
Miss Carr already allows the piling of manure in the smallholding compound, which stays there at most times for in excess of a year. During certain weather conditions, the foul smell coming from it, which is composed of the stench of horse urine, is a source of nuisance to us. At other times those smells are generated when Miss Carr has her stables cleaned out.
The fact that the large piles of manure partially compost by being piled high, the heat generated in the process, is also an attraction for rodents to form their nests in that manure.
A few weeks ago, Miss Carr employed the owners of a piggery, which is situated around half a mile from our properties, to spread the latest pile of manure on to the pasture adjoining our property. Two men, using two tractors, were employed from morning until 7pm in the evening spreading that manure. I have offered to show Miss Rawlimgs a video film that I took that day which will show that what I say here is true. There was also intense activity on the smallholding at that time to clear and tidy it up.
So there is, I believe, a further question arising out of this situation, which is this. Should the route, by which the tractors and manure spreading equipment presently use to access Miss Carr's smallholding, become subject of any interference, and I mean by that possible further dispute such as that which took place in 1991, which I have described, then there would be a problem of disposing of the animal wastes. We already have a problem caused by such waste, so any further development which could add to our problem is unacceptable.
The barns etc, which Miss Carr had built close to the boundary of our property, which I consider are themselves an eyesore, are also a further habitat for rodent infestation.
I believe that there is also a possibility of a fire being generated by combustion of damp hay and straw being stored in those barns, because of inadequate experience of Miss Carr, or her present boyfriend, in the way of storing those materials. In any event, the roofing of those barns, it would seem, being very poorly constructed, will let in water which will dampen the hay and straw, setting off a composting action, which in turn could result in the generation of a fire.
The smallholding has no fire hydrants close by, and besides our properties, there is also nearby, a large garage compound which has many possible sources of primary or secondary combustion which further adds to the risks of fire. The garage now also sells Calor Gas products, which could further threaten the environment in the situation of a fire arising from the sources that I have mentioned.
On the subject of present development, and possible future developments in the area, I believe that the situation of the actual siting of the stables will possibly be detrimental to the immediate area as a whole. The proposed access route, which most certainly is not the established one, will mean that a track of some sort will have to be constructed, which will bisect and border upon the present pastures, and this will impair the visual amen
There are presently other additional issues arising from the fact that the Enforcement Officer, Mr Parkinson, wrote to me a letter dated May 22nd 1996, containing the following statement relative to Miss Carr's smallholding, which is:-
"The land in question covers an area of 6.152 hectares of which 4.664 hectares are currently being used to provide a hay crop. The remaining land is used for grazing. The original buildings within the paddock area covered an area of 134.19 square metres and the building erected in 1987 covered an area of 48.6 square metres giving a total of 182.79 square metres".
I have underlined the part of Mr Parkinson's statement of which I consider to be of relevance to the matter of those buildings which now form part of Miss Carr's application. As I have said, and I have provided Miss Rawlings with two sworn affidavits to back it up, there were no original buildings in that area prior to 1987. I have tried to ascertain, as yet without success, how Mr Parkinson was able to arrive at such a statement, contained in the underlined text, which is definitely untrue. Now the question arises, as to who was responsible for claiming that prior to 1987 there were buildings on the paddock area covering 134. 19 square metres? Certainly there had been none. This matter is still an issue, and as it is clear that someone has not told the truth, then it is considered that it is now important to establish how Mr Parkinson was able to arrive at his statement which I have included here?
Miss Carr claims in paragraph two of her letter to Miss Rawlings, dated 1st May 1997, that on May 20th 1987 she spoke to a Mr Lyle of the Planning Department, who she says advised her that she did not require planning permission or any form of approval to build the livestock buildings, barns, and stables. In Miss Carr's letter to Miss Rawlings, under the paragraph headed " Current Position", she says, "It now appears that the information given to me by Mr Lyle was incorrect".
A further letter received by me from the Director of The Environment Department, dated 28th July 1995, contains the following statement:-
"My Enforcement Officer, Mr Parkinson has investigated the situation and would advise that the buildings erected by Miss Carr to the rear of 16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, did require planning permission at the time of construction, however as these buildings were erected in 1989 they are immune from enforcement action under the "4 year rule" as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 171B.".
I am still currently attempting to have this matter clarified by the planning authority. If indeed Mr Lyle had wrongly advised Miss Carr that she did not require planning permission or approval to erect the aforesaid buildings, then there are issues arising from this. If Miss Carr was at fault in 1987 by possibly not disclosing the true facts as required by the authority, then there are also issues arising from that as well. Whoever has been at fault, the enjoyment of our property has been adversely affected by the development that was began by Miss Carr in 1987. It is therefore considered as important, that those who were directly responsible for our situation, be it the authority, or Miss Carr, should now be identified, so that consideration can be given in the matter of remedying our situation, and to the relief that we may be entitled to, for the problems that we have suffered from Miss Carr's development of the smallholding over these past ten years.
In Miss Carr's letter to Miss Rawlings dated May 1st 1997, accompanying her application, she has made several statements which are untrue, and are libelous. From my past experience of dealings with Miss Carr, I am aware that on many occasions she has erred from the truth, and substituted for such truth, things that have been untrue. I have considerable documentary proof of this, and such proof is to be placed before Lord Woolf MR and the Lord Chief Justice, because it is considered that a former judge presiding in the civil litigation proceedings between Miss Carr and I, ought to have seen, and considered those things which had been sworn by Miss Carr to be fact, but were shown not to be fact. Issues arising from these matters have already been subject of discussion between Lord Woolf MR and The Lord Chief Justice.
I do not propose to answer to the allegations made against me by Miss Carr in her letter to Miss Rawlings dated 1st May 1997. Other highly libelous statements broadcast to others by Miss Carr, which are also grossly untrue, and can be shown to be untrue, are already to form as subject material for further planned litigation by way of libel proceedings against Miss Carr, so it will serve no purpose to discuss these other allegations made by Miss Carr here.
There is also another matter in which Miss Carr's application is not true to fact. In the crosshatched area which she claims as her property 16 The Lyons, there is an area of land which she claimed in litigation proceedings, indeed it was subject of the litigation, was owned by her. The court have ruled that she has no title to that area of land which was formerly known as the alleyway, and of which had been used as an accepted right of way by the public dating back to at least the middle of last century. Still Miss Carr claims that area as hers in the application that she has submitted.
Mr Parkinson, the Enforcement Officer, advised Miss Carr more than a year ago that she was required to submit a retrospective planning application relative to the keeping of horses on the development. Miss Carr writes in her letter of 1st May 1997 to Miss Rawlings that she apologises for the delay in completing this application, and goes on to say that this has been due to the pressures of her job and the ongoing litigation involving myself. It would seem that this too is untrue, as Miss Carr has found plenty of time in this past year to ride the horses unlawfully stabled on her development, along with many other activities that would suggest that she has had plenty of time to submit this application long before this time. In the matter of the litigation, Miss Carr has had legal representation, and therefore cannot claim that this has prevented her from making this application at an earlier time.
To conclude, up until 1987, when Miss Carr unfortunately arrived on the scene, the area on which she has attempted to establish her smallholding, and the area adjoining it, were used solely as pastures for animal grazing which caused us no problems. I have resided here for most of the time since 1947, and I can honestly say, that the problems to our quality of life that have been caused by Miss Carr's actions, have been more substantial than from any other source in all of that time, and I would therefore request that this application by Miss Carr, should receive the due consideration relative to the facts that I have submitted herein.
Yours sincerely
Mr. M. Kellett
------------------------------------
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk