Council serving six enforcement notices – Inspector dismissing appeal against notices – Application for inspector’s decision to be quashed in relation to two notices – Whether caravan used for ancillary or residential purposes – Whether kennel structure reducing openness of green belt – Application allowed in part
The second respondents served six enforcement notices on the applicant in relation to Firlea Kennels and Cattery, Swan Lane, Winterbourne, Bristol (the site), which was within the Bristol green belt. The site was approximately 0.36 ha, flat in character and was used as an animal boarding establishment. On the site was a wooden cattery capable of accommodating 35 cats together with an ancillary building for which a certificate of lawful use was issued on May 31 1996. There was also a long low kennel building accommodating 37 dogs and a caravan, providing lounge, kitchen and bathroom facilities, which was used as an animal kitchen. The applicant appealed against the enforcement notices. The inspector dismissed the appeal. In relation to notice B, which alleged change of use of the site by the siting of the caravan for residential purposes, she upheld the notice concluding that, on the balance of probabilities, its main use had been residential and that any food preparation for animals by the persons living in it was ancillary to that main function. In relation to notice D, which alleged the unlawful erection of the kennel building, she upheld the notice concluding that the structure resulted in encroachment on to open land, and materially reduced the green belt. The applicant appealed under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging the inspector’s decision in relation to notices B and D. It was contended in relation to notice B that there was insufficient evidence for the conclusion that the caravan had been mainly used for residential purposes, and in relation to notice D, it was submitted that the inspector had failed to take into account the fact that the kennels were between the cattery and the caravan and were therefore within an enclosed area.
Held The application was allowed in part.
1. Evidence of residential use to any material degree was not sufficient to justify the conclusion that the caravan was in residential use. The evidence appeared to show that there had been no change in the nature or degree of residential use and as there was a residential mobile home nearby, there was no apparent need to use the caravan as a residence. Therefore the inspector’s conclusion that the main use had been residential was not one which could be reasonably reached on the evidence before her.
2. The applicant was entitled to use the caravan for purposes ancillary to the cattery. Therefore, the requirement of notice B to remove the caravan permanently went beyond what was required to remedy the breach complained of in the enforcement notice, and that could not be saved on the basis that it would be readily understood that the caravan could lawfully be kept on site for ancillary purposes only: see Cord v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] JPL 40. Therefore, the application was to be allowed to that extent
3. Reading the decision letter as a whole, the inspector was clearly concerned to consider the effect of each development. There had been no reason why she should have presumed that the caravan would stay in the position which it had occupied when she saw it and therefore she had been entitled to uphold notice D.
Glyn Edwards (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the appellant; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, South Gloucestershire District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
