A family is hoping to persuade planners to let them stay in their home after it emerged it never got planning permission.
Henry Saxton and Hollie Stow moved into the former stables in Kirdford, near Billingshurst, in 2019.
The couple says it has been their main family home ever since, and have provided affidavits, utility bills and letters from neighbours to support this.
They say the stables were converted to a home by the previous owner, Mr A P Copus, who put in a kitchen, bathroom, living room, bedrooms and storage.
But no permission was ever given for this work – and now Mr Saxton is attempting to put that right.
He has applied to Chichester District Council for a certificate of lawful development to use the stables as a home, on the basis they’ve been used as that for more than four years.
The application, written by planning agent Nikolas Antoniou, says: “Upon his purchase of the property, Mr Saxton moved into the building with his partner and family. They have resided in the building and on site without break since July 2019.
“As a self-employed agricultural contractor, Mr Saxton has administered his works from the building much as would a work from home business.
“The letters from acquaintances and neighbours included within the application also attest to the residential occupancy of the building and land by the applicant for more than four years.”
The application does not say how the planning breach came to Mr Saxton or Chichester District Council’s attention.
The stables were first built in the noughties, and Mr Saxton says it was already being used as a home before he and Ms Stow moved in.
The rules over time limits for enforcement action to be taken in cases like this was increased from four years to ten years in 2023.
But this will only apply for planning breaches which start after 24 April 2024, so Mr Saxton argues the four-year rule applies in this case.
Two neighbours have commented on the plans. One, Ian Campbell, said: “A single dwelling on the site may not be a problem if a proper application had been submitted to allow full consideration and consultation by officers.
“Officers will presumably carefully look at the evidence of occupation and use together with the extent of any possible concealment over the period.”
Another, Heidi Tucker, said: We would not necessarily oppose a single dwelling on the site, but feel that this has been done by the back door.
We are not convinced that there is evidence of the period of claimed occupation, as vehicles are regularly seen arriving in the morning and leaving in the afternoon/evening, and this has been the case since the land was purchased and development started.
“Hopefully evidence will be available that occupation has been for the whole time claimed? Tall fences went up very quickly, which could be construed as trying to hide activities from view.
“There do not appear to be any ‘living’ lights in the property after dark.”
