®Planning appeal decision
Land at Alba Stables (aka Alba Stables, aka Hunts Farm & Stables), Bridge Way, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 1HW
- Within the last four (4) years and without planning permission, the formation of hardstanding. - With [sic] the last four (4) years and without planning permission, the erection of walls, gates and piers
- Authority
- Elmbridge Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- other · Not Applicable
- Inspector
- Saward K
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The main issue is whether the Council's decision to refuse to grant a LDC for part of the development applied for was well-founded.
- Ground (b): whether the alleged breach of planning control has not occurred as a matter of fact.
- Ground (d): whether at the time the notice was issued it was too late to take enforcement action (immunity from enforcement).
- Ground (g): whether the time given to comply with the requirements of the notice falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.
What decided it
The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, continuous lawful or immune use/operations for the required statutory periods, while the Council's technical (LIDAR) and documentary evidence was found more reliable.
Framework references: 58
Judgments cited: Fidler v FSS & Reigate Banstead BC 2004 EWCA Civ 1295; Burdle v SSE [1972] 3 All E.R. 240; Gregory & others v SSE & another [1990] 60 P&CR 413; Swale Borough Council v SSE [2005] EWCA Civ 1568; Gravesham BC v SSE & O'Brien [1983] JPL 306; London Borough of Islington v SSHCLG and Maxwell Estates Ltd [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin); Crawley Borough Council v Hickmet Ltd [1998] 75 P&CR 55
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.