PAPER B
1
ENFORCEMENT CASE REFERENCE NO:
COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Address The Internet Car Showroom, Wintney Farm, Taplins Farm Lane,
Winchfield
Nature of Complaint Failure to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice served
30th January 2014.
Date Registered 15.09.2010 Case Officer Sylvia O’Connor
Committee
Date 06.07.2015
Ward Member Parish
Council Hartley Wintney
Date Received
15.09.2010
Nature of
Complaint
Failure to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice served 30th
January 2014.
Officer
Recommendation
Members are requested to approve a prosecution against the
owner(s) for non-compliance with the Breach of Conditions
Notice as the use of the concrete apron for parking or storing
vehicles has a significant detrimental impact on the open
countryside contrary to saved policy RUR 2 and Section 11 of the
NPPF.
PAPER B
3
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Members will be aware that the Sub-Committee has considered a number of
reports over the last few years relating to this site.
On 1st July 2013 a report was presented to Members of the Planning Enforcement
Sub Committee concerning two matters at the Wintney Farm Barn site. The
matter subject of this report relates to non-compliance with Condition 4 of the
Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision dated 26th August 2011 relating to the use of
the concrete apron around the workshop building for the parking of vehicles.
A copy of the Appeal Decision is attached as Appendix A.
Condition 4 of the Decision states:-
The storage, servicing, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles, including any
bodywork repairs or paint spraying, shall be carried out only within the workshop
building and not on the circulation space (the concrete apron) around the
workshop building. That circulation space shall be used for the manoeuvring of
vehicles attending the workshop building and for no other purpose. The sale, or
display for sale, of motor vehicles on the concrete base is expressly prohibited.
At that meeting Members resolved that providing the breach was continuing and
vehicles were still being stored on the concrete apron then a Breach of condition
Notice should be served.
A copy of the minutes for the meeting is attached as Appendix B.
The Breach of Condition Notice was served on 30th January 2014.
2. THE SITE
The site is in the open countryside south of the M3. The site comprises a Grade II
listed building, Wintney Farm Barn at the east end of the site which is currently in
use for car sales and a workshop building to the west end of the site currently in
use for motor repairs and servicing.
3. ALLEGATION
That the Breach of Condition Notice served in January 2014 has not been complied
with.
The Notice was served on the grounds that the use of the concrete apron for
anything other than the manoeuvring of vehicles into and out of the workshop
building would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and setting of
the open countryside contrary to RUR 2 and the NPPF.
Officers conducted site visits in December 2014 and February 2015 and noted the
presence of cars parked on the concrete apron.
A copy of the Breach of condition Notice is attached as Appendix C
PAPER B
4
4. RELEVANT PLANNING/ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
• Enforcement Notice dated 15th September 2010 in respect of the Workshop
building (APP/N17030/C/10/2139297)
• The refusal of details pursuant to a number of planning conditions in respect of
the Enforcement Notice Appeal decision (APP/N1730/A/12/2178740 and
APP/N1730/A/12/2180281).
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
GEN 1 – General policy for development
RUR 2 – Development in the open countryside – general
NPPF - Section 11
6. CONSIDERATIONS
Addressing the conditions suggested by the LPA in consideration of the appeal
against the Enforcement Notice issued on 15th September 2010 the Planning
Inspector was of the view that the workshop building should not be seen to be
allowed to become another showroom and could see no reason why the building
or its forecourt should be used for the sale or display of motor vehicles.
The Inspector stated that the concrete base could remain by virtue of s.173(11) of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 but its use for any purpose other than
the one for which it was designed, i.e. circulation space around the workshop
building could be controlled by conditions imposed on the building as it was part and parcel of the same development. The condition which he imposed, and which is
the subject of this report, was added to ensure that the use of the concrete apron
would be for the manoeuvring of vehicles attending the building and for no other
purpose.
The words ‘no other purpose’ clearly prohibit the use for parking or storing
vehicles on the concrete apron.
There has been correspondence between the site owner, Council Officers and
Officers in Hart’s Shared Legal Team concerning the interpretation of the
Inspector’s Condition. In order to clarify this advice has been sought from Counsel.
Counsel’s view is that Officers interpretation of the condition, that it expressly
prohibits the parking and storing of cars on the concrete apron, is sound and that
there is nothing in principle to stop the Council bringing a prosecution for non-
compliance with the Breach of Conditions Notice.
In order to gather evidence to establish that the site owners are not complying with
the Notice it will be necessary for Officers to observe the site daily over a set
period to ensure that any vehicles on the apron are not merely manoeuvring but
are remaining in place for a period of time, either parked or stored which would
confirm that the Notice is not being complied with.
PAPER B
5
In order to take this matter further as a prosecution the public interest test must
be applied.
7. RECOMMENDATION
As Members resolved that a Breach of Condition Notice was served it is
recommended that:
Members are requested to approve a prosecution against the owner(s) for non-
compliance with the Breach of Conditions Notice as the use of the concrete apron
for parking or storing vehicles has a significant detrimental impact on the open
countryside contrary to saved policy RUR 2 and Section 11 of the NPPF.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 July 2011
by George Mapson DipTP DipLD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 26 August 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/C/10/2139297 Wintney Barn, Taplins Farm Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 8SH
• The appeal is made by Mr Henry Peat (Hart Motor Company Limited) against an
enforcement notice (Council's Ref No. E683) issued by Hart District Council on 15 September 2010. It is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
• The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is:
“Without planning permission, the erection of a workshop building (“the Building”) used for purposes incidental to the use of the Land for the sale and/or display for sale of
motor vehicles and the construction of a concrete base/retaining structure in the approximate position shown hatched black on the Plan.”
• The requirements of the notice are:
“1. Carry out the tree protection measures in accordance with Paragraph 1.0 of the schedule attached to this notice (“the Schedule”)1
2. Remove the oaks[sic] trees marked T2 and T3 on the plan labelled Outline
Topographic Survey attached to the Schedule (“the Topographic Plan”) in accordance with Paragraph 1.1 of the Schedule
3. Construct the tree protection measures around the Oak tree labelled T1 on the Topographic Plan in accordance with Paragraph 1.2 of the Schedule
4. Demolish the unauthorised concrete base/retaining structure in accordance with Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of the Schedule
5. Construct the ground protection measures around the Oak tree labelled T1 on the Topographic Plan in accordance with Paragraph 1.5 of the Schedule
6. Realign the concrete base/ retaining structure in accordance with Paragraphs 2.0–2.2
inclusive of the Schedule 7. Plant 2 ivy plugs at the base of each sleeper in accordance with Paragraph 2.3 of the
Schedule 8. Remove the tree protection in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Schedule
9. Decompact the exposed ground in the identified root protection area of the Oak Tree on the plan SK1 attached to the Schedule in accordance with Paragraph[sic] 1.7 and 1.8
of the Schedule 10. Carry out the tree pit preparation, tree planting and hedgerow planting in
accordance with Paragraphs 3.0-5.4 inclusive of the Schedule
11. Replace any failed specimen tree or hedgerow plants in accordance with Paragraphs 3.7, 4.1 and 5.4 of the Schedule
12. Prune out any dead or damaged branches from all specimen trees in accordance with Paragraphs 3.7 and 4.1 of the Schedule
13. Prune out any dead or damaged branches from all specimen hedgerow plants in accordance with Paragraph 5.4 of the Schedule
14. Demolish the area of hardstanding in accordance with Paragraph [sic] 6.0 and 6.1 of the Schedule and remove all resultant debris from the Land
1 This Schedule is appended at pages 17-22.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2
15. Remove from the Building shown hatched black on the Plan any horizontal “non-
structural elements” (ie [sic] concrete panels, not steel frame) above ground floor level.”
• The periods for compliance with the requirements are:
(i) Requirements 1-9 and 14: “Three months”; (ii) Requirement 10: “During the first available planting season (1st March to 31st
October) after this notice comes into effect”;
(iii) Requirements 11 and 13: “During the first five planting seasons (1st March to 31st October) after the initial planting”;
(v) Requirement 12: “During the first planting season (1st March to 31st October) after the initial planting or replanting”;
(vi) Requirement 15: “Two Months”.
• The grounds on which the appeal is proceeding are those set out in section 174(2) (a), (c), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The
appellant’s grounds of appeal initially included ground (d) as well but this was
withdrawn by a letter dated 12 January 2011.
Summary of decision: The appeal succeeds in part and permission for that part is granted. Otherwise the appeal fails and the enforcement notice is upheld, with corrections
and variations, as set out in the Formal Decision below.
BACKGROUND
THE APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
1. The appeal site lies in the open countryside outside the built up limits of any
settlement. The appeal development has taken place on the western part of a large area of land that is associated with Wintney Farm Barn, a Grade 11* listed building.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2. In July 2002 planning permission (Ref No. 98/00602/COU) was granted, subject to
32 conditions, for the change of use of that area of land. It has been interpreted as granting planning permission to use the listed barn and its land for the sale and
display for sale of motor vehicles2. The parties are in agreement that the 2002
2 Planning permission (Ref No. 98/00602/COU) has some apparent shortcomings. The decision notice simply
grants “Planning permission for change of use of site and planning permission for a workshop Building to enable
restoration of the Barn”. It does not specify what the approved use of the site or the ‘restored’ barn would be as a
result of implementing this permission. To interpret the permission and establish the permitted use I have looked
at some, but not all, of the application documents. There is a plan marked “Proposed Showroom Alterations” and
the Design and Access Statement, which refers to a “Showroom” of 267.5sqm. The parties appear to accept that
the planning permission was implemented and that the lawful use of the ‘restored’ barn is use for the sale and/or
display for sale of motor vehicles, but the planning permission does not expressly state that this is the case.
Condition no. 17 (“ ... no change of use from car sales to Class A1 retail shall be made without the prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority”) and condition no. 23 (“No sales shall take place between the hours of
8.00pm and 8.00am”) provide further evidence that the approved use of the ‘restored’ barn was as a car
showroom. However, the decision notice contains no conditions that stipulate that there must be a functional link
between the use of the barn and the land on which it stands and the proposed workshop building. That workshop
building was approved solely, it seems, to “enable” the restoration of the barn, rather than to be put explicitly to a
use that was ancillary to the future use of the converted barn and the lawful use of the planning unit. No
permitted use was stated; its ancillary status appears to be assumed from the fact that it was to be erected within
the application site, which is regarded by the Council as forming a single planning unit. That said, the anomalies
of the planning permission have no direct bearing on the appeal development which deviates materially from the
2002 approved scheme and is therefore regarded as the construction of a building and base without planning
permission. But the question of their ‘ancillary use’ is important, because this expression appears in the recitation
of the alleged breach of planning control, from which the terms of the deemed application are derived. The parties
disagree on the matter of whether the unauthorised workshop building has an ancillary function within the
planning unit as a whole, rather than having an independent use. The evidence of the current use appears to
suggest that at least part of the building is being used as a stand-alone vehicle repair garage.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 3
planning permission has been implemented. The listed barn has been renovated
and has been let to a company trading as ‘theInternetCarShowroom.com’, which specialises in the online sale of BMW vehicles. The building is used as an office,
rather than as a showroom, and its large block-paved forecourt is used for the storage and display for sale of motor vehicles.
3. The 2002 planning permission also permitted the erection of a single storey workshop building and a surrounding concrete base, the operational development
that is the subject of this appeal. The shape and size of the permitted building and
base differ materially from what has been constructed. The interior of the building is unfinished. I saw that there are internal windows and doors at first floor level, but
the floors below them have yet to be installed.
4. The central part of the building is already occupied. It is let to and used by a
company trading as ‘Hampshire Service Centre’, a garage specialising in the repair and servicing of Mercedes vehicles.
THE ALLEGED BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL
5. The enforcement notice alleges that neither the workshop building nor its concrete
base have been constructed in complete accordance with details approved by the
2002 planning permission3. In cases such as this an enforcement notice would usually require the demolition of the building and its base and the restoration of the
site to its former condition. This notice does not do that. It under-enforces, in the sense that it requires lesser steps to be taken to remedy the harm caused to
amenity.
The workshop building
6. Although the workshop building differs materially from the approved building, the notice is directed specifically at internal works that have commenced to install an
additional floor, thus potentially doubling its floorspace. This would be in
contravention of condition No. 16 of the 2002 planning permission, which stipulated that the building must be single storey only. The only requirement of the notice that
applies to the workshop building is No. 15, which requires the removal from the building of “any horizontal, non-structural elements (i.e., concrete panels, not steel
frame) above ground level”.
The concrete base and retaining structure
7. The concrete base is larger than the one that would support the approved building. In its south-eastern corner, the base abuts a mature oak tree which is now
protected by a tree preservation order4. It has a steep retaining structure at this
point which encroaches upon the root protection area [RPA5] of the tree.
8. Requirement Nos. 4, 6 and 16 relate to the concrete base and retaining structure;
No. 4 requires its partial demolition in the south-eastern corner and No. 6 requires its partial realignment. Requirement No. 14 relates to the north-western corner of
the base, which encroached into the RPA of two other TPO-protected trees, but no
3 Third party representations assert that the agreed floor levels for the approved building were not complied with
and that, as a result, the unauthorised building, at its ridge, is some 3.8m higher (AOD) than was approved. The
appellant refutes this assertion, and it is not a matter that the Council has commented on.
4 The tree in question is identified as Tree T 3 on Tree Preservation Order [TPO] ORD/11/00044, made on 25
January 2011. It is one of three English Oak trees covered by the TPO and is located on neighbouring agricultural
land, belonging to third parties who have made representations in this appeal. On the Topographic Plan it is
identified as T1.
5 The root protection area (RPA) is defined in BS 5837:2005 as a “layout design tool indicating the area
surrounding a tree that contains sufficient rooting volume to ensure the survival of the tree, shown in the plan as
m2”.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 4
detailed representations have been made about the need for this part of the base to
be rectified.
GENERAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT AND PLANNING PERMISSIONS
SECTION 173(11)
9. Section 173(11) of the 1990 Act provides that where an enforcement notice could
have required buildings or works to be removed, but has stipulated some lesser requirements, then planning permission shall be deemed to be granted6 for the
matters alleged once the notice has been complied with in full.
10. In other words, if the requirements of a notice are directed at putting right the offending differences only, once this is done the whole development will have a new
unconditional deemed permission.
SECTION 180
11. Section 180 provides that where a planning permission is subsequently granted for the same development, or for some part of it, as that covered by an enforcement
notice, the permission overrides the notice to the extent that its requirements are inconsistent with the planning permission. However, the notice does not cease to
have effect altogether. I address the relevance of s.180 to this appeal at paragraph
43 below.
THE APPEAL ON GROUND (c)
12. An appeal on ground (c) is that there has not been a breach of planning control; for example, because permission has already been granted, or the matters alleged
constitute ‘permitted development’.
13. The appellant says that his case on ground (c) relates to the allegation that a first
floor has been added to the workshop building. He refutes this. In his submission, some concrete beams were installed to serve as support for 14 large vehicle doors
and serve as a ceiling for parts of the building. But there is no access to the space
above the beams and it is not used for any purpose. He does mention that he has discussed with Council officers the possibility of installing a first floor, which would
be used for the storage of classic cars. However, he claims that, to date, there has been no breach of planning control in the form of an unauthorised first floor.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE GROUND (c) APPEAL
14. I saw that components are in place to create a first floor within the building, and I
note that the framework travel plan [FTP] states that there is an intention to install a car lift allowing vehicles to access a first floor. As a matter of fact, some internal
works have taken place.
15. In any case, the allegation is that the workshop building and base differ materially from those that were approved as part of the 2002 planning permission.
16. The building is materially different, both internally and externally, from the approved building. The approved plans show an L-shaped building with a floor area of about
906sqm, on a concrete base measuring about 33.5m by 62.5m. The workshop building that has been erected is rectangular, has a floor area of about 1144sqm and
stands on a concrete base measuring about 37.5m by 64.1m. With an additional floor in place, the total floorspace provided would be about 2288sqm. Consequently,
neither the workshop building nor its base can rely upon the 2002 planning
permission.
6 Under s.73A.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 5
17. As a matter of fact, no planning permission has been sought or granted for a
workshop building or base of this shape or size in this position. Accordingly, the appeal on ground (c) must fail.
THE APPEAL ON GROUND (a) AND THE DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION
18. As appeal on ground (a) is that planning permission should be granted for what is
alleged in the notice.
19. In this appeal, the two components of the deemed application give rise to different
issues. I shall therefore deal with them separately.
LOCAL AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
20. The Council has drawn my attention to a number of ‘saved’ policies in the adopted
local plan7 and also to national planning guidance found in PPS7 and PPG13.
21. I am mindful of the recommendations for producing high quality, robust travel plans
[TP] that appear in the Department of Transport [DOT] document entitled ‘Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process’
(April 2009)8. These are relevant to my assessment of the merits of the workshop building.
22. The advice found in BS5837:2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction –
Recommendations’ is relevant to my assessment of the merits of the concrete base and retaining structure, bearing in mind its proximity to a TPO protected tree.
23. In reaching my conclusions on both components of the deemed application, I shall apply those policies and have regard to that guidance.
THE WORKSHOP BUILDING
The Council’s current stance on the acceptability of the workshop building
24. As I have mentioned, the Council has not sought the demolition of the workshop building. In its representations it has not raised objections to the design or
proportions of the building, or to its scale or impact on the character and
appearance of the area.
25. It is not to say that it does not have some adverse visual impact. However, as an
alternative to demolition, the Council has sought to mitigate the harm it has caused by imposing requirements on the notice and suggesting planning conditions on any
permission granted on the deemed application. Some would deal with landscaping; others seek to control outside uses to minimise the visual impact arising from
activities associated with the building.
26. I agree that some such requirements and conditions would be necessary if the
workshop building were to remain. It is prominently located close to the M3
motorway, and to a road bridge that crosses over it. It is clearly visible from those viewpoints and elsewhere. It is a bulky, conspicuous and intrusive building which is
at odds with its rural surroundings.
7 As set out in ‘Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local
Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 – Saved Policies’ (April 2009). The Council has drawn attention to policies CON8,
GEN1, RUR2 and RUR3.
8 This document defines a travel plan as a “long-term management strategy for an occupier or site that
seeks to deliver sustainable transport objectives through positive action and is articulated in a document
that is regularly reviewed”. The document explains that its suggested steps to produce travel plans are
recommendations only. They are not to be taken as additions to Government policy or law on travel
plans.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 6
27. Because of its location, it is right to limit the use of the appeal development. The
justification for the approved building, it seems, was to facilitate the servicing, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and in that respect there was a functional
link with the approved car sales use of the ‘restored’ barn. I see no good reason to permit the workshop building to be used for the display for sale of vehicles, inside or
out. In the interests of mitigating the visual impact of the appeal development on its surroundings, a planning condition would be reasonable and necessary to control
the uses to which the development as a whole is put. I return to this point in my
consideration of the conditions that the parties have suggested (see paragraphs 72-86 below).
28. Having regard to the 2002 planning permission, I concur with the Council’s view that the added harm caused – over and above that which would have arisen from
constructing the approved workshop – falls within the bounds of acceptability, provided that the requirements of the notice and planning conditions are fully
complied with and enforced should transgressions occur.
29. When the notice was issued, the Council’s principal concern was that the workshop
building contained an “internal platform or gallery area” and that, when completed,
it would have two floors instead of one. The floorspace of 2288sqm would enable this building to be used far more intensively than the workshop building that had
been approved. The Council was not opposed to a two storey building per se, but wanted to ensure that a TP would be put in place, secured by means of a planning
condition. Since the notice was issued, an FTP9 has been submitted.
30. The Council’s current stance is that - with conditions in place, including one relating
to the provision, implementation and retention of a TP based on the submitted framework document - requirement No. 15 of the notice would no longer be required
and conditional planning permission should be granted on the deemed application.
Main issues
31. That being the case, two main issues arise from the erection of the two-storey
workshop building. The first issue concerns the accessibility and sustainability implications and whether they would be satisfactorily addressed by the
implementation of a TP based on the submitted FTP. The second issue concerns the appropriate action to take on requirement No. 15 of the notice.
Reasons
Issue 1 - accessibility and sustainability implications
32. Local and national planning policies strictly control new development in the open
countryside for several reasons, one of which is to reduce car usage. The appeal site is in a remote rural location and significant accessibility and sustainability issues
arise from permitting new development here. A TP is therefore needed to address those issues.
33. PPG13 (paras. 86-90) explains that the relevance of a TP to planning lies in the delivery of sustainable travel objectives. It says that TPs should have measurable
outputs, which might relate to targets in a local transport plan, and they should set out the arrangements for monitoring the progress of the plan, as well as the
arrangements for enforcement, in the event that agreed objectives are not met.
Conditions attached to a planning permission would be enforceable against any developer who implements that permission and any subsequent occupiers of the
property.
9 This has been produced by Bellamy Roberts, Highway and Transportation Consultants (December 21010) and is
appended to the Councils Statement of Case (App 4).
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 7
34. The FTP goes some way towards meeting the advice in PPG13 and the DOT good
practice guidelines, but it lacks detail. I appreciate that formulating a TP is an iterative process that entails input from many parties, but the submitted FTP is some
way short of fulfilling the requirements of an adoptable TP10. Provided that those details are provided, and any other issues that might arise during the consultation
process are addressed, I am satisfied that the workshop building with two floors would be acceptable in principle.
Issue 2 – the appropriate action to take on requirement No. 15
35. Conditions on a planning permission are enforceable only if the planning permission is implemented. Just because a permission is granted retrospectively for
development that has been carried out in advance of an application, it cannot be assumed that the permission has being implemented11. There must be some
conscious step towards implementation before the conditions imposed can take effect.
36. Furthermore, the apparent acceptance and implementation of a permission does not preclude an appellant claiming at a later stage that the permission was unnecessary,
and so was not implemented12.
37. That being the case, it is necessary to put measures in place to ensure that the deemed permission for the workshop building would be implemented. This would
safeguard the appellant as well as the Council, because it would remove all doubt that the building had the benefit of an implemented planning permission.
38. The Council has suggested that requirement No. 15 is no longer needed. The inference is that this requirement should be deleted and the notice upheld, as
corrected.
39. Whilst requirement No. 15 might no longer be appropriate, to simply delete it
without a replacement would result in an absurd situation where the Council is
purporting to take enforcement action against an unauthorised building but proposing no requirement to remedy that breach. That would call into question the
validity of the notice. In Tandridge District Council v Verrechia13, it was held that an enforcement notice cannot validly allege a breach without specifying at least some
steps which it requires to be taken.
10 For example, the FTP has: (1) only broad-based and general Objectives, rather than objectives that are specific
to this site; (2) no specific Outcomes that it is seeking to achieve; (3) no defined Targets that it is aiming for ; (4)
no specific Indicators to compliment the targets; (5) no specific Management Plan setting out how the TP would be
implemented and managed over the life of the development; (6) no Travel Plan Co-ordinator [TPC] (The FTP
states that the owners of the building will appoint a TPC who will be in place upon first occupation of the building.
However, as the building is already occupied, a time limit must be prescribed for that action.); (7) No indication of
Travel Plan funding or the Review Process. The FTP states that upon occupation of the site a Travel Plan Working
Party will be set up to take control of the TP and manage the dedicated budget to fund the plan. As the building is
already occupied, a time limit must be prescribed for that action. Moreover, the funding of activities must be
clearly stated, including any fees to cover the cost of activities; (8) no specific timescales for Monitoring
Information to be collected or an Agreed Format for information; (9) no specific information on a mechanism to
cater for Default.
11 Butcher v SSE and Maidstone BC [1996] JPL 636. The Court held that a conditional permission granted years
previously for a change of use on a deemed application on an enforcement notice appeal under s.177(5) was not
implemented at once or automatically, and there had to be some conscious step towards implementation before
the conditions imposed took effect. If it can be shown that a permission has not been implemented, then there can
be a ground (c) success in respect of any notice aimed at enforcing conditions on it.
12 Newbury BC v SSE [1980] JPL 325 HoL
13 Tandridge District Council v Verrechia (Court of Appeal, March 31 1999) The Times, June 16, 1999; [1999] 3 All
E.R. 247
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 8
40. Consequently, there still needs to be a requirement that seeks to remedy the breach
of planning control that has occurred as far as the workshop building is concerned. If requirement No. 15 is no longer appropriate then another must be put in its place.
41. After careful consideration, I have come to the view that the most suitable alternative requirement would be one requiring the complete demolition of the
building, the removal of all debris arising and the restoration of the site. Subject to that and other requirements, some of which relate to the concrete base and
retaining structure, the enforcement notice would be upheld.
General principles relating to natural justice
42. On its face, such a requirement might appear unduly onerous and offend one of the
rules of natural justice that apply to enforcement appeals; namely, that an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of an appeal than he or she
would have been had they not appealed and simply complied with the notice as issued. But in this case, because of the deemed planning permission that I shall
grant, s.180 comes into play.
The effect of s.180
43. At paragraph 11 above, I explained how s.180 works where a planning permission is
subsequently granted for the same development, or for some part of it, as that covered by an enforcement notice. The deemed planning permission for the
workshop building, if implemented, would override the part of the enforcement notice that relates to it and permit it to remain. With the notice upheld and
effective, a failure to implement the deemed planning permission within the compliance period of the new requirements would cause its provisions to take effect
and the building would have to be demolished.
The test for corrections to an enforcement notice
44. The Courts interpret the power to correct enforcement notices very widely14. In
Simms15 it was held that the words of s.176 propound only one test, namely whether the change would cause injustice. I am satisfied that varying the
requirements of the notice in this manner would not cause injustice to any party.
45. I deal in more detail with variations to the requirements at paragraphs 99-101
below.
Third party representations
46. I recognise that the third party representations raise fundamental objections to the workshop building that would not be addressed in full by the implementation of a TP
and planning conditions. They insist that the building is too big, too intrusive, and
that it should be demolished.
47. I can understand their feelings, but I cannot lightly set aside the 2002 planning
permission which approved a similar, though smaller building on this site. That decision is an important material consideration in this appeal because it indicates a
level of acceptance by the Council of the visual impact that the approved workshop building would have made. It provides a benchmark against which to assess the
added harm that this larger building would cause. As I have said, I am satisfied that enforceable planning conditions could be formulated and imposed on a deemed
planning permission to address that harm.
14 R v SSE Ex Parte Ahern (London) Ltd [1989] JPL 757
15 Simms v SSE & Broxtowe BC [1998] PLCR 24
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 9
Conclusions on the ground (a) appeal, as it relates to the workshop building
48. I share the Council’s view that appropriate landscaping of the site is essential to the integration of this building into its rural surroundings and that compliance with an
agreed TP is central to the acceptability of its use. On that basis, I agree with the Council that a conditional deemed planning permission can be granted in respect of
the workshop building. To that limited extent, the appeal on ground (a) succeeds.
THE CONCRETE BASE AND RETAINING STRUCTURE
Planning policy
49. Local plan policy CON applies to development that would affect trees or hedgerows of significant landscape or amenity value. Such development will be approved only
if it is shown that these features are to be retained in the longer term, or - if removal is necessary- that new planting is proposed to maintain the value of these
features.
BS5837:2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations’
50. The parties have sought the advice of arboriculturists and both refer to BS5837:2005, the current British Standard [BS] on trees in relation to construction.
Its recommendations are a material consideration in this appeal.
Main issues
51. Having regard to this development plan policy and the BS recommendations, the
main issues are:
1) Whether the TPO-protected English Oak tree on neighbouring land, and other
mature oak trees on the appeal site, possess amenity value such that their loss would have a significant impact on the local environment and their enjoyment by
the public; and
2) Whether the appeal development poses a significant risk to the health and life
expectancy of the ‘protected’ tree and other mature trees on the site.
Reasons
The objectives of the development plan
52. The supporting text to policy CON8 explains that much of the character of Hart is derived from the large areas of woodland and the substantial numbers of trees and
fine hedgerows in its towns and villages. The same can be applied its countryside areas.
53. It goes on to point out that, both ecologically and visually, trees and hedgerows are an important part of the environment. The Council will resist the loss of trees and
other features, which contribute to the character of the District. Where individual
trees or groups of trees are considered to be of particular amenity value, the Council will protect them by making TPOs.
54. That objective undoubtedly prompted its decision to make a TPO to protect the important trees on this site, albeit at a late stage and only after the enforcement
notice had been issued. Nevertheless, the protected trees – and others on the wider site that are not covered by the TPO – do make a significant contribution to the
attractive landscape of the area and they merit that protection.
Issue 1 – the amenity value of the protected tree
55. The amenity or aesthetic value of any protected tree will generally depend on its
form, size and height, its prominence from public vantage points and its setting.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 10
56. The protected English Oak tree is a particularly good example of its kind. It stands
on neighbouring land close to the appeal site. The public has access to the appeal site and the car sales area beyond. The tree is visible from those areas and from
various points on Taplins Farm Lane.
57. It is worthy of retention for the amenity value that it possesses. Its loss would have
a noticeable impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public.
Issue 2 – the likely risk to the health and life expectancy of the ‘protected’ tree
58. The parties’ arboricultural advisors differ on their assessments of the likely future
effects of the appeal development. The Council says that extensive works have taken place close by that are likely to have affected the root system of the
‘protected’ tree and soil has been piled up around the stems of the other two important trees. All the trees have been subjected to significant changes in their
ground conditions that are likely to adversely affect their health and life expectancy to a greater or lesser extent.
59. The appellant’s evidence is that the creation of the piling mat that supports the building and its base was put down some four years ago. Because the ground was
comprised mainly of fill material, deposited as part of the M3 construction
operations, piling was required to support the building. The appellant says that 12m deep piles were sunk to support the base, some of which were within the RPA of the
‘protected tree’. A piling mat of coarse inert rubble was laid down to enable the operation of plant and machinery used in the construction of the building. This
material remains in situ.
60. It is claimed that the concrete in this area rests on piles, rather than on the ground
or on the roots of the trees. As such, it has little or no detrimental effect on the ‘protected’ tree. In the appellant’s submission, the remedial works required by the
notice are unwarranted if required solely to safeguard the health of the tree and
could adversely affect the structural stability of the building.
61. According to the appellant the ‘protected’ oak tree has a stem diameter of about
90cms (measured at 1.5m above ground level). Based on the guidance in the BS16, this tree would require an RPA with a 10.8m radius. This contrasts with the
Council’s estimate of a 12m radius for the RPA.
62. Although the parties disagree about the appropriate RPA to apply, there is
agreement that the concrete base and retaining structure encroach upon it. The Council says that the edge of the concrete base is about 6m from the tree’s stem
and the edge of the retaining structure directly abuts it. By the Council’s
calculations, the construction works encroach upon about 33% of the RPA.
63. Judging by the evidence of other work on the site – the lack of tree protection or
measures to allow moisture and air to permeate the covered section of the RPA – the Council argues that none of the advisory standards set out in the BS have been
followed and as a consequence there is significant potential to cause harm to the ‘protected’ tree. That being the case, it is not unreasonable to require the removal
of the unauthorised structure from the RPA of that tree.
64. As regards the other two oak trees (T2 and T3 on the Topographic Plan) the Council
considers that both have been so damaged by ground compaction and root
severance that they are likely to fail in the next few years. The notice requires their removal.
65. The appellant’s arboricultural advisor refutes the claims that the health of the trees has suffered. Using incremental core information for trees T2 and T3, he says that
16 Table 2 of the BS sets out the formula for calculating a tree’s RPA.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 11
there is no evidence to suggest that the piling mat has had any adverse effect, other
than a small reduction in their incremental growth during the years immediately following these works. No such information was available for the ‘protected’ tree.
66. In his view, removal of the parts of the concrete base and retaining structure to comply with the notice would cause more harm than good and, in the interests of
the tree, it would be better to leave the concrete base and retaining structure intact.
67. My views are as follows. The first point to make is that I must use my observations
at the site to assess the present condition of the trees. In the case of the ‘protected’
tree, I saw no significant open cavities in the stem or branches, no significant amounts of dead wood in the crown or on the ground, no signs of fungus17 and no
loose or missing bark. However, I note the appellant’s point that the Council’s photograph 3e does appear to show decay in the root buttress on the southern side
of the tree.
68. From my observations, there were no obvious indicators that this tree is dying or
that it is under stress. However, the development has resulted in a sizeable encroachment into the RPA and this is likely to have caused significant root loss or
damage. There is a strong likelihood, in my view, that these works could adversely
affect the future health and stability of the tree. This situation should be rectified by removing the retaining structure from the RPA and decompacting the ground to
enable the root system to recover.
69. As regards the other trees (T2 and T3 on the Topographic Plan), they show some
signs of thinning in their crowns. Having regard to the likely compaction of the ground and the heaping of soil around their stems, significantly above the natural
ground level, it is possible that these works could adversely affect their future health and stability. Although the Council is seeking, through the requirements of the
notice, the removal of those trees now and their replacement, it seems to me that
they should be retained and the soil around their stems removed in order to give them the best chance of survival (see paragraph 104, sub-para. 8).
70. It seems to me that the retaining structure alongside the concrete base is unacceptable in its present form, given the damage it has caused. To improve the
‘protected’ tree’s prospects of survival, it is necessary to remove and realign those parts of the retaining structure that encroach upon the RPA.
Conclusions on the ground (a) appeal, as it relates to the concrete base/retaining structure
71. I share the Council’s view that the concrete base and retaining structure are
unacceptable in their present form and that to permit them to remain unchanged
would conflict with the objectives of the development plan. Accordingly, deemed planning permission is refused in respect of these components of the appeal
development and the notice is upheld. However, I shall review the requirements of the notice in my consideration of the appeals on grounds (f) and (g). Some will be
varied or deleted.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
72. In the event of deemed planning permission being granted, the Council has suggested 14 conditions that it regards as reasonable and necessary to impose.
73. Suggested condition No.1 would restrict the use of the workshop building to uses
connected to the main use of the site as a whole for the sale and/or display for sale of motor vehicles.
17 The appellant’s arboricultural advisor says that he detected the presence of fruiting bodies of Honey Fungus at
the base of the tree, but that this cannot be directly attributed to the construction works.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 12
74. The appellant contends that such a condition was not imposed on the 2002 planning
permission and it would be unreasonable to impose it here. In his view, the use of the workshop building should reflect the lawful uses of the planning unit. As an
alternative, he has suggested: “The workshop building including its concrete hardstanding hereby approved shall be used for the sale, storage, repair and/or
display for sale of motor vehicles.”
75. I share his view on the first point. There is no single user of the site covered by the
2002 planning permission. The land to which that permission related is now let to
different companies and buildings are occupied independently of one another. The use of one building is not ancillary to the use of another.
76. However, on the second point, the 2002 permission seemingly approved the erection of a workshop building, not another showroom. I see no good reason why this
appeal development – the building or its forecourt - should be used for the sale or display for sale of motor vehicles.
77. I shall impose a condition enabling the Council to control the uses to which this building and its base are put. The building shall be used only for the storage and
servicing, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles. The concrete base can remain
by virtue of s.173(11) but its use for any purpose other than the one for which it was designed – i.e., circulation space around the workshop building can be
controlled by conditions imposed on the building because it is part and parcel of the same development. The condition that I shall impose will restrict its use to the
manoeuvring of vehicles attending the workshop building and for no other purpose. Indoor or outdoor sales or display for sales of motor vehicles from the workshop
building or the concrete base are expressly prohibited.
78. Suggested condition No. 2 has the effect of limiting the number of floors to no more
than two. No objection is raised to it.
79. Suggested condition Nos. 3 and 4 seek to mitigate the effects of light pollution, by requiring express approval for the installation of any external lighting and stipulating
that internal blinds shall be fitted to rooflights, and thereafter retained and brought into use each night during the hours of darkness (i.e., outside daylight hours).
80. I agree with the appellant that these suggested conditions are unreasonable and unnecessary, given the site’s location beside the motorway. The building is not in a
position where roof light spillage would give rise to unacceptable levels of light pollution, such as to warrant these conditions. I shall, however, impose a condition
bringing within the Council’s control all external lighting on or around the workshop
building and the concrete base.
81. Suggested condition Nos. 5 to 8 relate to landscaping matters. The appellant has
suggested that the conditions could make explicit reference to the landscaping scheme submitted by Ian Keen Limited. The Council has found fault with some of
those proposals, particularly the use of certain plant species which are not appropriate in a rural setting. I share those concerns. Consequently, I shall make
leave the Council to agree a scheme, rather than specify that the appellant’s scheme should be implemented.
82. Suggested condition No. 9 relates to the use of the concrete base. The appellant
contests the need for this condition, but I agree with the Council that such a condition is needed, for the reasons given above.
83. Suggested condition Nos. 10 and 11 preclude paint spraying other than within the workshop building and require the provision of car and cycle parking facilities. No
objection is raised to these conditions and both are reasonable in this case.
84. Suggested condition No. 12 places a control on the external re-staining of the
workshop building. The appellant challenges the need for this condition. As worded,
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 13
routine re-staining would require the Council’s approval each time it was to be
undertaken. Whilst I can understand the Council’s wish to exercise some control over the external appearance of the building, the wording of the suggested condition
is too prescriptive. I shall reword it so that the control exercised is over the colour of the building. The idea behind the use of dark stained weatherboarding was to
help this bulky building to harmonise with its surroundings. Retaining the dark colour is important in that regard.
85. Suggested condition Nos. 13 and 14 secure the implementation of an agreed TP.
86. Paragraph 107 below sets out the conditions that I shall impose on the deemed planning permission for the workshop building. Some of these are based on the
Council’s conditions, re-worded where necessary to incorporate the appellant’s comments or to accord with the advice in Circular 11/95.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ON GROUND (A) AND THE DEEMED APPLICATION
87. I have taken account of all the matters raised in the written representations. For
the reasons given, the appeal on ground (a) succeeds in part and deemed planning permission for that part is granted. Otherwise the appeal fails and the enforcement
notice is upheld, with corrections and variations, as set out in the Formal Decision
below.
THE APPEAL ON GROUND (f)
88. An appeal on ground (f) is that the matters alleged in the notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections.
89. The first part of the appellant’s case relates to the requirement to remove part of the retaining structure that is close to the ‘protected’ tree. This is essentially a
reiteration of the ground (a) case relating to the concrete base and retaining structure. I have made my views clear on the harm caused. Only complying with
requirement Nos. 4 and 6 would overcome the harm caused to the tree.
90. The second part of his case relates to the ‘landscaping’ requirements. Whilst accepting that the concrete base, as constructed, does not exactly match that shown
on the plan, there is no good reason why the landscaping plans proposed for the approved scheme could not still be implemented.
91. I have some sympathy with the appellant’s view on this latter point. Although I do not consider that the appellant’s landscaping scheme is preferable, in terms of the
plant materials proposed, I consider that the Council’s requirements are overly prescriptive and I shall vary some of them accordingly. I would draw particular
attention to requirement No. 2 which requires the felling of trees T2 and T3. This
clearly exceeds what is necessary to remedy the breach and will be omitted. In its place I shall substitute a requirement for tipped material around their stems to be
removed.
92. To that limited extent, the appeal on ground (f) succeeds.
THE APPEAL ON GROUND (g)
93. An appeal on ground (g) is that the time given to comply with the notice is too
short.
94. The appellant’s case relates to requirement Nos. 4 and 6, which require demolition
of part of the concrete base and its retaining structure and its realignment within
three months.
95. The appellant says that this provides insufficient time to conduct structural surveys
of the concrete base and retaining structure, carry out the required work, and raise
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 14
the necessary finance to fund it. The Council’s response addresses only the
landscaping of the site, rather than the specific points raised by the appellant.
96. The unauthorised work continues to have a potentially harmful effect on the
‘protected’ tree and measures should be taken sooner rather than later to remedy that harm. However, I agree with the appellant that three months is too short a
period to carry out the survey and complete the necessary works. I shall therefore extend the compliance period for the requirements to six months. To that limited
extent the appeal on ground (g) succeeds.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
CORRECTIONS AND VARIATIONS TO THE NOTICE
The Schedule – corrections to the date and status of the Schedule
97. The appellant has pointed out that the notice was issued on 15 September 2010, but
the Schedule is entitled “Schedule to be attached to the Enforcement Notice dated 13th of September 2010 in respect of: Land at Wintney Barn, Taplins Farm, Hartley
Wintney”. This is a minor typographical error that is correctable without causing injustice. The requirements of the notice and Schedule are overly prescriptive. I
shall therefore correct the notice to make it clear that the Schedule offers advisory
guidance only.
Section 3: The matters which appear to constitute the breach of planning control
98. From my observations at the site and the appellant’s evidence, it is clear that the workshop building is not being used for purposes incidental to the use of the land for
the sale and/or display for sale of motor vehicles. This misdescription of the alleged breach is correctable without causing injustice.
Section 5: What you are required to do
99. Several of the requirements go beyond what is reasonable and necessary to remedy
the breach of control that has occurred. In order to simplify matters I shall delete
the text of Section 5 in its entirety and substitute the wording that is set out in paragraph 104 below. All the requirements will be subject to a single compliance
period of six months.
100. The requirements of the notice that deal with landscaping are deleted and replaced
by a condition imposed on the deemed application.
101. Requirement No. 14, which required the demolition of an area of hardstanding within
the RPAs of Trees T4 and T5 on the Topographic Plan, is deleted. No justification for this requirement appears in the Council’s statements and I consider that the
incursions into the RPAs of these trees are within acceptable limits.
FORMAL DECISION
102. The enforcement notice is corrected by deleting from the Schedule the date “13th of
September 2010” and substituting “15 September 2010” and by adding the words “This Schedule is for guidance only and it does not form part of the requirements of
the notice.”
103. The enforcement notice is corrected by deleting from Section 3 the words:
(“the Building”) used for purposes incidental to the use of the Land for the sale
and/or display for sale of motor vehicles
104. The enforcement notice is varied by deleting the text of Section 5 in its entirety and substituting:
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 15
1) Demolish the workshop building, remove all the resulting debris and restore the
land to its former condition.
2) Before commencing any further works required by this notice, implement tree
protection measures to the tree identified as T1 on Plan A annexed to the notice in accordance with the recommendations set out in BS 5837:2005.
3) Demolish part of the concrete base and its retaining structure as shown hatched black on Plan B annexed to this decision and remove all resulting debris.
4) Realign all surface and foul water drainage runs to avoid encroachment into the
area shown hatched black on Plan B annexed to this decision
5) Realign the concrete base and retaining structure to the position marked in red
on Plan B annexed to this notice and reconstruct and reface the exposed edge of the retaining structure.
6) Remove the tree protection measures to tree T1 once requirements Nos 3 – 5 have been complied with.
7) Decompact the exposed ground within the identified root protection area of tree T1 (the area of land shown hatched black on Plan B annexed to this decision).
8) Remove all tipped material that has been deposited above the natural ground
level from around the stems of the trees identified as T2 and T3 on Plan A annexed to this decision.
Time for compliance with these requirements: Six months from the date of this decision.
105. Subject to these corrections and variations the appeal is dismissed in part and allowed in part and the enforcement notice is upheld.
106. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the construction of a concrete base and retaining structure and planning permission is refused on the application
deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for
that development.
107. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a workshop building.
Planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried
out, namely the erection of a workshop building on the land shown edged red on Plan C annexed to this decision, subject to the following conditions:
1) The workshop building hereby permitted shall be demolished to ground level and materials resulting from the demolition shall be removed within three months of
the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iv)
below:
(i) Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the following schemes shall
have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning
authority and the schemes shall include a timetable for their implementation.
i. A full Travel Plan relating to the occupiers of the workshop
building.
ii. Full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including an
implementation programme and a schedule of landscape maintenance to cover a minimum period of five years.
iii. Full details of car parking and cycle parking facilities for occupiers
of the workshop building and visitors to it.
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 16
(ii) If within 11 months of the date of this decision the local planning
authority refuses to approve any scheme or fails to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted
as validly made by, the Secretary of State.
(iii) If an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have
been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.
(iv) The approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in
accordance with the approved timetable.
2) The workshop building hereby permitted shall have no more than two floors or galleries.
3) The workshop building hereby permitted shall be used only for the storage, servicing, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and for no other purpose.
The sale or display for sale of motor vehicles within the workshop is expressly
prohibited.
4) The storage, servicing, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles, including any
bodywork repairs or paint spraying, shall be carried out only within the workshop building and not on the circulation space (the concrete apron) around the workshop building. That circulation space shall be used for the manoeuvring of vehicles attending the workshop building and for no other purpose. The sale, or
display for sale, of motor vehicles on the concrete base is expressly prohibited.
5) The dark stained weatherboard cladding on the external walls of the workshop
building hereby permitted shall be retained in a dark colour unless the local
planning authority gives its approval in writing to any change of colour.
6) No external lighting shall be installed or operated on the building or on the
circulation space without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority.
George Mapson
Inspector
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 17
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 18
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 19
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 20
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 21
Appeal Decision APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 22
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Plan A This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 26.08.2011
by George Mapson DipTP DipLD MRTPI
Land at: Wintney Barn, Taplins Farm Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 8SH
Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
Scale: Not to scale
Extract from the ‘Topographic Plan’, attached to the enforcement notice, showing the location of Tree T1 (TPO Tree No. T3)
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Plan B This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 26.08.2011
by George Mapson DipTP DipLD MRTPI
Land at: Wintney Barn, Taplins Farm Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 8SH
Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
Scale: Not to scale
Extract from Plan SK1 annexed to the Schedule attached to the enforcement notice
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Plan C This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 26.08.2011
by George Mapson DipTP DipLD MRTPI
Land at: Wintney Barn, Taplins Farm Lane, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 8SH
Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/C/10/2139297
Scale: Not to scale
Extract from Plan SK2 annexed to the Schedule attached to the enforcement notice
Pl.Enf.1
PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT) SUB-COMMITTEE
Date and Time: Monday, 1 July 2013 at 10.00 am
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Present:
COUNCILLORS
Bennison (Chairman)
Blewett, Kennett, Murphy (substitute), Southern (from 1030 am)
Officers:
Robert Jackson Development Control Manager
Sarah Castle Principal Planning Officer
Sharon Whittaker Enforcement Officer
David Anthony Shared Legal Services
Gill Chapman Business Support
1 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Councillor Bennison was elected as Chairman.
2 ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN
Councillor Kennett was elected as Vice Chairman.
3 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2012 were confirmed and signed as
a correct record.
4 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies had been received from Councillor Parker.
5 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman announced that Councillor Billings had been substituted by Councillor
Murphy for this meeting only.
6 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations made.
Pl.Enf.2
7 WINTNEY BARN, TAPLINS FARM LANE, WINCHFIELD, HOOK
HAMPSHIRE10/00255/MP3
A report from the Head of Planning Services was considered.
It was confirmed that the concrete had been removed from the vicinity of the tree
and Members discussed the landscaping and planting works to be completed by the
end of March 2014. Members noted that this item would come back to the sub-
committee after the deadline if the works had not been completed.
Members considered the breach relating to the concrete apron. After discussion on
the use of the space and the Appeal Decision document, it was agreed that
recommendation A should be followed.
RESOLVED
That, providing the breach is continuing and vehicles are still being stored on the
concrete apron, to serve a Breach of Condition Notice in respect of Condition 4 of
appeal ref APP/N1730/C/10/2139297.
NOTE:
Mr Peat of Wintney Barn spoke.
Miss Harwood of the neighbouring property spoke.
Councillor Southern entered the meeting during this item.
8 STILLERS FARM, EWSHOT LANE, EWSHOT, FARNHAM, SURREY,
GU51 5BT11/00046/NP3
A report from the Head of Planning Services was presented, informing members that
they had until 2016 (revised from 2015) to take action if they considered it
appropriate. Members considered that the strip of land was probably less than 5
metres wide and was therefore limited in its uses, and that there had been no
neighbour objections. After discussion it was agreed that it was not expedient to
pursue any action at this time.
RESOLVED
That no further action be taken as the 10 year period required before the
development becomes lawful ends in 2016. In line with Policy PE1 of the General
Policy on Enforcing Planning Control the breach does not affect public amenity or
cause harm to land or buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest.
The meeting closed at 10.45 am
PAPER B
Appendix C
IMPORTANT- THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)
BREACH OF CONDITION NOTICE
SERVED BY HART DISTRICT COUNCIL (“the Council”)
TO :
The Company Secretary Longcross Securities Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
The Company Secretary Autotrade International Limited Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
The Company Secretary Hampshire Service Centre Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
The Company Secretary Hart Motor Company Limited Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
The Company Secretary Imperial Car Supermarkets Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
Mr Henry Peat Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
National Westminster Bank PLC Sheffield Securities Centre P O Box 502 2nd and 3rd Floors 52 High Street Sheffield S1 2YW
The Owner/Occupier Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
Site Notice Wintney Barn Taplins Farm Lane Hartley Wintney Hook Hampshire RG27 8SH
PAPER B
Appendix C
1. THIS NOTICE is served by the Council, under section 187A of the
above Act, because they consider that a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission relating to the land described in paragraph 2 below, has not been complied with. The Council consider that you should be required to comply with the condition specified in this notice. The Annex at the end of this notice contains important additional information.
2. THE LAND TO WHICH THE NOTICE RELATES
Land at Wintney Barn, Taplins Farm Lane, Winchfield, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 8SH as outlined in red on the attached plan “the Land”.
3. THE RELEVANT PLANNING PERMISSION
The relevant planning permission to which this notice relates is the permission granted by The Planning Inspectorate on 26th August 2011 for the erection of a workshop building under Planning Inspectorate appeal reference number APP/N1730/C/10/2139297.
4. THE BREACH OF CONDITION
The following condition has not been complied with:
Condition 4:- The storage, servicing, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles, including any bodywork repairs or paint spraying, shall be carried out only within the workshop building and not on the circulation space (the concrete apron) around the workshop building. That circulation space shall be used for the manoeuvring of vehicles attending the workshop building and for no other purpose. The sale, or display for sale, of motor vehicles on the concrete base is expressly prohibited. Reason: This would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and setting of the open countryside contrary to saved policy RUR 2 and the NPPF. It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning condition has occurred within the last ten years.
5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO
As the person responsible for the breach of condition specified in paragraph 4 of this notice, you are required to comply with the stated condition by taking the following steps:- To cease the use of the concrete apron (as shown hatched black on the Plan annexed to this Notice) which surrounds the workshop on the
PAPER B
Appendix C
Land for purposes other than manoeuvring of vehicles attending the workshop. Period for compliance: 6 weeks beginning with the day that this notice is served on you or you received it by postal delivery.
Dated: 30th January 2014 Signed:
Anne Brown, Solicitor Interim Head of Governance on behalf of: Shared Legal Services Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and Hart District Council Civic Offices London Road Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 4AH
PAPER B
Appendix C
Annex
WARNING
THIS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT IMMEDIATELY IT IS SERVED ON YOU IN
PERSON OR ON THE DAY YOU RECEIVED IT BY POST.
THERE IS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS AGAINST THIS
NOTICE. It is an offence to contravene the requirements stated in paragraph 5 of this notice after the end of the compliance period. You will then be at risk of immediate prosecution in the Magistrates' Court, for which the maximum penalty is £1,000 for a first offence and for any subsequent offence. If you are in any doubt about what this notice requires you to do, you should get in touch immediately with Sharon Whittaker Planning Enforcement Officer from Hart District on (01252) 774418. If you do need independent advice about this notice, you are advised to contact urgently a lawyer, planning, consultant or other professional adviser specialising, in planning matters. If you wish to contest the validity of the notice, you may only do so by an application to the High Court for judicial review.
Top Related