®Planning appeal decision
Top Park, Top Road, Barnacle, Rugby, CV7 9LE
i) Erection of fencing, gates and other structures ii) Removal of hedgerow to form an access
- Authority
- Rugby Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Change of use
- Inspector
- Freer P
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the enforcement notices are nullities
- Whether Notice 2020/01 is valid and can be corrected without injustice
- Whether the appeal on ground (b) succeeds in relation to Notice 2020/01
- Whether the period for compliance specified in Notice 2020/01 falls short of what should reasonably be allowed (ground (g))
What decided it
Notice 2020/02 failed for want of reasonable certainty in its Council-approval-dependent requirements, while Notice 2020/01 was upheld because the appellants could not disprove the alleged breach and the substantial public interest in Green Belt protection outweighed their personal and Article 8 interests.
the substantial public interest in protecting the Green Belt and securing expeditious compliance, together with harm to character and appearance, outweighed the appellants' personal circumstances and rights under the HRA, save that the compliance period was extended to 31 October 2022 to allow grass reseeding in the autumn
Judgments cited: Kaur v SSE & Greenwich LBC [1989] EGCS 142; [1990] JPL 814; Payne v NAW & Caerphilly CBC [2006] EWHC 597 (Admin); Oates v SoCLG and Canterbury [2017] EWHC 2716; Miller-Mead v MHL [1963] 2 WLR 225; Murfitt v SSE [1980] JPL598; Somak Travel v SSE [1987] JPL 630; Bowring v SSCLG [2015] WL 1651330; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2015] 1654 (Admin), [2016} EWCA Civ 874
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.