Appeal dismissed after Dorney 'builders yard' breaches planning control

An appeal against a council enforcement notice for land formerly known as Orchard Herbs in Dorney has been dismissed.

Buckinghamshire Council alleged the use of the land in Lake End Road was changed from agricultural to mixed-use without permission.

The council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawfulness for its existing use as a builder’s yard and commercial vehicle, equipment and building material storage was ‘well-founded’, according to planning inspector Paul Freer in an appeal ruling published on Thursday, October 10.

A public inquiry that began on September 10 revealed that vehicle breaking occurs on the site, as well as the preparation, storage and distribution of ready-mix concrete.

Neighbouring Lake End House occupier Robert Stopford complained about the ‘continuous noise emanating’ from lorry engines and raw materials for concrete being loaded onto vehicles onsite.

Mr Stopford said there were vehicle movements more than six days each week, and the site operated from around 6am to 8pm, a claim which was not challenged by the appellant.

Mr Freer said the development had an ‘unacceptable effect’ on the living conditions of the occupiers of Lake End House, specifically concerning noise disturbance and dust.

Due to the low-lying and open topography of the appeal site, the planning inspector also said the development’s height and ‘overtly industrial appearance’ were ‘intrinsically at odds’ with the distinctive character of the area.

“This landscape has a strong sense of identity but the development that has taken place is far beyond the capacity of the landscape to accommodate and assimilate it,” said Mr Freer. He concluded that the planning control breach had ‘unacceptably harmed’ the area’s character and appearance.

According to the appeal decision, the appeal site was historically used for unauthorised purposes such as an animal sanctuary, which continued after a retrospective planning application was refused in 2014, and a HGV storage site in 2018.

A ‘significant’ churn of occupiers use the large site and ‘those occupiers do not park or store items in a fixed location but use whatever space they can find,’ said Mr Freer.

He added: “In many cases, vehicles are unliveried. Occupiers’ use of, and visitors to, the site also fluctuate, such that their occupation may not be apparent from visits to the site on any given day.”

This appeal was grounded on whether Buckinghamshire Council had made reasonable enquiries and whether the enforcement notice was ‘affixed conspicuously’ on the premises.

Mr Freer ruled the council could not be held responsible if the first occupier removed the enforcement notice and did not replace it for other occupiers on the site to read.

The appellant said there was a right to revert the land to its last lawful use, but Mr Freer concluded this only applied to the use ‘immediately’ preceding the unauthorised use being enforced against.

Mr Freer also said the development failed to preserve the setting of four Grade II-listed buildings and the Huntercombe Conservation Area.

He said contributions to the local economy from the development were ‘unquantified’ and the appellant advanced ‘no other public benefits’.