The Land Known As Park Farm, Eastern Avenue East, Romford, RM3 7NR

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Whether a material change of use of land identified as B1 to use as an extension to a scaffolding yard took place on or before 27 May 2012 and continued without substantial interruption for a period of 10 years thereafter (ground (d), Appeal A)
• Whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and, if so, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development (ground (a), Appeal A)
• Whether inappropriate development has occurred in the Green Belt and if so whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development (ground (a), Appeal B)
• Whether copies of the enforcement notice were served as required by section 172 of the 1990 Act and whether any person required to be served has been substantially prejudiced by the failure in service (ground (e), Appeal B)
• Whether the requirements of the enforcement notice are excessive, taking account of the purpose of the notice (ground (f))
• Whether the compliance period is reasonable (ground (g))

What decided it

Whether each element of unauthorised development amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, where it did, whether the resulting harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances.

For each parcel the Inspector weighed Green Belt harm (substantial where inappropriate) against economic/operational benefits and proposed mitigation (landscaping, height controls); the balance favoured permission for areas A2, B1, C2, G/G1/G2, the bund, the low wall and the access road, but harm was not outweighed for area A1, areas C1/C3, the boundary fence/gates and the street lamps/CCTV columns.