Walls And Roof Come Down After Owners Breach Planning Laws

The owners of a recently constructed house in the Mudeford Conservation Area in Dorset will have to partly demolish the building after a Planning Inspector dismissed their appeal against an enforcement notice served by Christchurch Borough Council.

In 2002 the owners of The Old Dairy in Farm Lane, Christchurch applied to the Council for planning permission to convert the building to a single dwelling. In 2006 further planning permission was granted to raise the roof by approximately 300mm and insert roof lights in the roof of the building.

However, when the building work started it was evident that the roof was being raised even higher and the building was being extended at the front resulting in a larger building than approved by the Council.

The Council warned the owners that, if they continued to work, they ran the risk of legal action. They applied for planning permission to retain the new building, but it was refused owing to the harmful impact of the Conservation Area and to neighbouring properties.


In March 2007 an enforcement notice was served by the Council requiring the developers to reduce the building to the height and width agreed on the approved plans. The owners appealed against this enforcement notice as well as the refusal to grant retrospective planning permission.

The Planning Inspector has now dismissed these appeals, stating: "The development no longer preserves the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." He also considered that the living conditions of the residents of one of the neighbouring properties could be harmed.

He has ruled that the owners must now either reinstate the building to its original design or remove the existing roof and reduce the eaves and front wall to adhere to the original planning permission. They have three months to comply with this ruling.

Cllr David Jones, Chairman of the Planning Control Committee at Christchurch Council, said: "This is another example of proactive enforcement when people wilfully breach planning control. While I can sympathise with someone who breaks planning laws through ignorance or carelessness, and who takes immediate steps to rectify the error, in this case the developers were fully aware of the risks of proceeding with development for which they did not have planning permission. They were warned of the consequences, but they chose to ignore our advice.

"We are pleased that the Planning Inspector has upheld our decision and would point this out as a warning to others who may think that they can flout planning laws with impunity. It could cost them dear."

(JM)