®Planning appeal decision
Land at Alba Stables (Aka Alba Stables, Aka Hunts Farm & Stables), Bridge Way, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 1HW
Planning appeal 3230220 at Land at Alba Stables (Aka Alba Stables, Aka Hunts Farm & Stables), Bridge Way, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 1HW (Elmbridge Borough Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 9 May 2023 by Inspector Saward K, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: 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.
- 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
- Postcode
- KT11 1HW
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.
What the Inspector cited
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 58
- Judgments
- 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
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Elmbridge Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Planning permission granted3 July 20253346613107 Ditton Hill, Long Ditton, Surbiton, KT6 5EJ
- Planning permission granted2 April 20253332877Running Mare, 45 Tilt Road, Cobham, KT11 3EZ
- Dismissed20 August 2024333730227 Douglas Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 8BA
- Planning permission granted18 March 2024332893447 Thames Street, Weybridge, KT13 8JG
- Notice varied and upheld18 December 20233300590Land at 16 Monument Green, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 8QT
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.