A man from Wimborne, Dorset, has asked the High Court to overturn a council enforcement notice in a bid to make life more comfortable for himself and his sick wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis.
When his wifes illness made it difficult for them to share their caravan home, Charles Mabey converted his workshop at Jemeck, Rushall Lane, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, Dorset, and moved into it. However, East Dorset District Council then ordered him to return the workshop to its original use.
Now he is arguing before Harrison J that his rights under the new Human Rights Act 1998 have been infringed by the councils enforcement notice.
Mr Mabey claims that he had used the workshop from time to time to sleep in, and began to convert it in 1994 because his wifes declining health and mental state, caused by multiple sclerosis, made it very difficult for them to share their mobile home.
He installed a 10ft x 7ft cabin made of Glasonite to live and sleep in inside the workshop on his land, an area which is mainly rural and designated as green belt.
The court was told that the conversion is just part of a long planning history of the land, which Mr Mabey has lived upon for about 26 years.
This included a previous enforcement notice against a change of use of the land for use as a contractors yard in the early 1990s, and a series of dismissed planning applications for permission to retain the couples caravan on the land. Mr Mabey claims that council moves to have the caravan removed from the site also influenced his decision to convert the workshop.
After the council issued the enforcement notice, Mr Mabey appealed unsuccessfully to an Environment Secretary inspector.
In todays proceedings, he is seeking to persuade Harrison J to quash the inspectors decision because it interferes with his right to respect for his private and family life and home, under Article 8 of the new Act.
He claims that the facts of the case, including the tragic circumstances surrounding his wifes ill health and his statement that if he failed in his appeal he would be homeless, were in evidence before the inspector.
He argues therefore that there was evidence upon which the issue of Article 8 and the use of proportionality in decision making could have been determined.
The hearing continues.
PLS News 12/12/00
