executive summary · 2015. 6. 23. · the internet car showroom, wintney farm, taplins farm lane,...

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.



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”.



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.



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.



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).



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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,



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



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:



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.



(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


Plan A This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 26.08.2011


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)


Plan B This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 26.08.2011




Scale: Not to scale

Extract from Plan SK1 annexed to the Schedule attached to the enforcement notice


Plan C This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 26.08.2011




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.

executive summary · 2015. 6. 23. · the internet car showroom, wintney farm, taplins farm lane,...

Documents