The jobsworths have struck again, but in Rotherham council this time. What a pity they have nothing better to do.

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1315163

He should grow the grass long, use it as a tip and set fire to a shed there. Then it will look like what the council are used to! :D

perhaps he should have considered the permissible uses before purchasing the land.it does appear unfair, but it would have made sense to check it out before spending loadsa money on the project.

A planning spokesman said: "We have been trying to resolve this issue amicably now for several years and have given Mr Hamshaw plenty of opportunity to comply with an enforcement order.
'Amicably' and 'enforcement order' in the same sentence? Unbelievable. Yes, he should have checked the allowable uses, but it's not like he built a fairground on it.

This probably explains why the council acted like it did:

Even though he owned the land, Alan was told he could not incorporate it into his garden without planning permission.

It looks like he was willing to spend hundreds on the garden but not the extra few pounds to make it legal.

Originally posted by max
This probably explains why the council acted like it did:



It looks like he was willing to spend hundreds on the garden but not the extra few pounds to make it legal.

The problem (as I see it) is that he bought the land, then the council changed the rules:


Star Website
Keen gardener Alan bought the land next to his Whiston Vale home for £2,000. It had previously been used as a builder's yard.

then:

Star Website
But when the council was drawing up a new unitary development plan for the area the land, next to allotments, was designated for similar use.

Originally posted by sccsux
The problem (as I see it) is that he bought the land, then the council changed the rules:




then:

It was still a change of use, from industrial to garden, and would still have needed planning permission.

If I were him I'd feel slightly foolish for not checking what I could do with the land. But I'd now be making it an utter eyesore in the hope of convincing the local community in persuading THEIR council to let it be made a beautiful garden again. You sometimes really do have to wonder who on Earth these 'planners' think they work for.

Well even if he has to use it as an allotment it can still be made an attractive looking feature, - he can plant flowering fruit trees/shrubs - and flowers too. There's no rule to say you can only grow boring looking veggies in an allotment.

It's a pity though that council planners always seem to see their role as adversarial rather than concilliatory. Exceptions can and have been made to planning rules, - but in this case it seems neither party was prepared to give ground.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Well even if he has to use it as an allotment it can still be made an attractive looking feature, - he can plant flowering fruit trees/shrubs - and flowers too. There's no rule to say you can only grow boring looking veggies in an allotment.

It's a pity though that council planners always seem to see their role as adversarial rather than concilliatory. Exceptions can and have been made to planning rules, - but in this case it seems neither party was prepared to give ground.

How could the planners have given ground in this instance if he hadn't applied for a change of use? Do you expect the council tax payers of Rotherham to fund the application? It needs changing on the unitary plan to prevent litigation at a future date and someone has to pay for the changes.

imo the only reason planners are seen as adverserial is because they are defending the tax payers' position who are the people paying their wages.

did he refuse to apply for permission after he was told he was in the wrong?

It's established use is a builder's yard - they can't take that away. So just pile it high with decking and fences that are ostensibly for sale - it might just look exactly like the decking / fences he just demolished - so that's alright then.

Nuf said.