Latest news with #planninglaws
Daily Mail
05-07-2025
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE 'Devastated' couple who spent £45k inheritance on building illegal log cabin in national park say they were 'led in blind' after council orders them to demolish it
A couple who cleared out their retirement savings to build an illegal off-grid cabin in one of Britain's most protected national parks say they are 'devastated' after planners ordered they knock it down. Andrew and Debbie Melbourne insist they knew 'nothing' and were 'led in blind' about planning laws preventing the construction of their 1,200 sq ft fully insulated spruce cabin which boasts stunning views over the South Downs. Following a complex planning investigation and abject fury from neighbours, the couple were pursued through the courts and now have two months to knock the vast single-storey structure down or face jail. Speaking to MailOnline at their now partially-dismantled cabin near Waterlooville, in Hampshire, Debbie broke down in tears as she said: 'It would have allowed us to foresee our dream. It was something for our boys and a legacy. 'Normal people like us don't know the laws of the land. At no point ever were we told about Article 4 restrictions or that this was in the national park.' Andrew, 56, a former music teacher, added: 'We were led in blind basically. It's absolutely devastating, we spent two years researching what we could and couldn't put on the land. 'There were no disclosures that we were on the South Downs National Park. If we'd known we wouldn't have bought it. Absolutely I regret it, I wouldn't have done it, I've lost all my inheritance through this. 'We've had loads of grief from the council, lies from the council. Half a dozen people up on the other side don't like what we're doing. I was a teacher in the area and they just want to discredit my name.' The couple purchased their half-acre plot on land off Lovedean Lane last year for around £20,000 before buying a German-made prefabricated log cabin online for £25,000. The site is one of over 80 individual plots on a controversial land banking scheme owned by Gladwish Land Sales, who once had their name emblazoned across a whopping 31 Non-League football teams and courted criticism in the early noughties through their fan-targeted matchday programme ads. The concept sees developers buy a field before dividing it into smaller parcels and selling those off to buyers who are often told they will get planning in the future which may not be granted. Andrew said he had never heard of land banking before and said he bought the land privately from the vendor. The dad-of-two, who plays the trombone in local Ska and Jazz bands, insists there were no disclosures on the plot being inside a National Park or it being subject to an Article 4, which removes permitted development rights which allow certain types of minor building works to take place. 'We had no idea we couldn't do anything on this land, we had no idea it was part of the South Downs National Park, the maps are quite ambiguous, they are not very clear,' Andrew added. A quick Google search of the South Downs National Park boundaries takes you to an interactive map titled 'Do I live in the National Park?', it shows the Melbournes' plot inside the boundary. Building began without planning permission in April last year and saw the couple level a vast area at the top of their plot where the cabin now sits. Andrew reckons they removed well over ten tons of mostly chalk soil. 'The whole idea was to start up a community garden, we wanted to put in the lodge so people could use it while working here,' Andrew claims. The cabin was up in five months and the couple say it would have been totally off-grid featuring a kitchen, office space, shower rooms, living quarters and a compostable toilet with its own on-site water supply. Despite the facilities to make the cabin habitable, the couple, who have lived in the area for 35 years, claim they had no intention of living in it. As the project progressed, trees were cut down and a garden which slopes down the hill towards a bridleway was created. Trees, shrubs and bushes were planted with the intention of creating a Japanese 'miyawaki forest' that would grow quickly into a miniature dense woodland. A road leading from an entrance gate up the side of the hill and to the cabin was also carved into the hillside without planning permission. It didn't take long before planners from East Hampshire District Council and the South Downs National Park Authority began issuing warnings and notices. Between September 2024 and February 2025 officers served a Planning Contravention Notice, two Enforcement Notices and a Stop Notice to the Melbournes. Despite multiple warnings, the couple 'ploughed on regardless', as one exasperated neighbour who looks out on to the 'eyesore' cabin, said. That neighbour, along with several others, had watched the 'upsetting' project unfold from their homes on Glamorgan Road, which overlooks the Melbournes cabin plot from an opposing hillside, and decided to take action. They added: 'We saw them clearing the site with a mini digger and thought, hang on? On the one hand they're claiming the land is for eco purposes and bee farming but then they're pulling down trees during nesting season. 'Every morning I make a cup of coffee, I look at that, I go to my office, I get up to get something, I look at that. I can't avoid it. 'They had a chance to engage in a process but they've just ploughed on regardless of the planning enforcement notices. Anyone in their right mind would have sought legal advice.' Another neighbour on the road said: 'The thing that galled us was that they were constantly ignoring the law, advice and notices they were issued. 'They could have gone to any one of the authorities for proper advice and they chose not to. 'Every time somebody spoke to them and tried to get to the bottom of what they were doing they seemed to change their story.' One lady who wished to remain anonymous alleged the couple had objected to people walking along the bridleway past the cabin. 'He's obviously tried to do that to stop people looking at what he's doing,' she claimed. Despite some objections, one local carpenter said he didn't think the cabin was that bad, noting: 'It blends into the landscape doesn't it? It's natural isn't it? But they didn't have planning, unfortunately.' The cabin was 80 per cent finished in May when the Melbournes, threatened with a High Court hearing in June, signed a legally binding contract agreeing to remove the building. As part of the agreement they were ordered to remove all materials, gates, fences and other forms of development, including the groundworks and paths they'd carved out of the landscape and return the site to its original condition. They were slapped with a £3,500 fine by East Hampshire District Council and told the cabin must be gone in 56 days or face a custodial sentence. The couple are in the process of dismantling the cabin and have already removed the roof and flooring. The Melbournes reckon they have lost well over £50,000 on the project and get emotional when asked about their next move. 'It was something for our boys and a legacy, it would've been great for our grandson,' says Debbie, as she wipes away tears after struggling to comprehend the situation. She added: 'We have got no savings left now, we invested in something we thought would be good for the community. It's been a complete nightmare. The plot is going on the market this week. 'We will recoup some money and maybe find another piece of land that's not in a national park.' Andrew added: 'We were going to retire but it's all gone sour.' Councillor Angela Glass, EHDC's Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement, said: 'We are delighted this legal agreement has been signed and we now expect the development to be cleared over the next couple of months. 'This is the culmination of many months of complex legal and enforcement work by our determined team of officers to reach this position. 'I want residents to understand that if people breach planning rules, then we have the means to take action against them.' Councillor Sara Schillemore, the local ward councillor for Catherington, said: 'Residents were appalled to see this unsightly structure being erected in one of the most picturesque and valuable viewpoints in East Hampshire. 'It's vitally important that we protect our precious landscape and residents will be thrilled to see the development removed. East Hampshire Enforcement Officers worked hard for many months to achieve this result, and I sincerely thank them.' Tim Slaney, Director of Planning at the South Downs National Park Authority, said: 'I'm delighted we've reached a resolution to this breach of planning that was harming this wonderful nationally-designated landscape. 'I would like to thank East Hampshire District Council which pursued this enforcement case with determination, making it clear we will not tolerate blatant breaches of planning.' The agreement sets out a 56-day deadline to carry out the work. Failure to comply with this type of legal agreement can lead to enforcement proceedings in the High Court which can lead to costly legal fees and even a custodial sentence.
The Sun
01-07-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Our neighbour built TWO new builds next to our quaint cottages – we'll buy popcorn & watch council rip them down
FUMING neighbours say they're ready to "buy popcorn" and watch if bulldozers tear down two newbuild houses built next to their home. The controversial semi-detached homes sprung up on the site of a former pub car park in Bradford, West Yorkshire. 4 4 4 But the properties, which one neighbour vehemently opposes, were built after their planning permission timeframe had lapsed. Now locals are demanding action over the development - which they claim towers over surrounding heritage cottages and damages the area's character. Residents have also called on council officials to make an example of developers who flout planning laws and later seek retrospective approval. Helen Naylor, 50, said: "People in Bradford build exactly what they like, when they like, how they like. And to hell with all rules and regulations. "The council needs to get its act together because in Bradford, nobody seems to care. "I think everyone around here has just had enough of it." The homes appeared in just under a year on the site of the long-disused pub car park in the Heaton area of the city, with one listed for sale online as a five-bedroom, three-storey property. Although permission was granted in 2015 for a modest development, residents claim that lapsed long before building began. Now, both homes face potential demolition if Bradford Council refuses to approve the scheme in hindsight. Neighbour Jane Loe, 68, said: "It's quite funny in a way, but also horrible for those who live here. "My neighbour and I said we're buying popcorn if and when they make them pull it down. "We're going to sit out here and laugh." Ms Loe, who lives opposite the new houses with husband Nick Swift, 76, has claimed that the final product looks even worse than the one that was proposed. She explained: "The original design was unattractive but what they've actually built is even worse." The developer, named in council documents as Amjad Yaqoob, reportedly believed the 2015 approval still applied when he purchased the land. He has claimed to have been unaware that the consent had lapsed. Bradford Council has confirmed that no valid permission was in place when the two homes were built. A decision on the retrospective application is expected in the coming weeks. Neighbours close to the new-build homes say they hope the council will take firm action. Mr Yaqoob, who runs a building company in Bradford, declined to comment when approached. However, architects working on his behalf told Bradford Council that there was "never any malicious intent to build something without approval", and claimed the development was "very similar" to the previously approved plans. The firm added: "The materials used are sympathetic to the area, and there are no additional issues of overlooking or overbearing. "We therefore feel the retrospective application should be approved.' The developer's agents, P.N. Bakes Architectural Consultancy, argue that the homes are "very similar" to the 2015 plans and say their client believed a "material start" had already been made. Bradford Council say enforcement action will be "reviewed" once a decision is made. A spokesman said: "Our Planning Enforcement Team have investigated reports of these works being carried out without planning permission. "As a planning application has now been submitted, the matter of enforcement will be reviewed once a decision on planning permission has been made, as is standard practice nationally." 4
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lost playgrounds should be replaced, says MP
An MP is calling for a change in planning laws to ensure that any playgrounds lost to development will be replaced nearby. Tom Hayes, Labour MP for Bournemouth East, has tabled an amendment to the government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill which has its second and third readings in the Commons this week. He wants a "play sufficiency" duty in England to ensure no-net loss of existing play spaces due to development without equivalent provision by local council planners. The same rules already apply in Wales and Scotland. The MP says the subject is close to his heart: "Over the last decade, we've seen playgrounds boarded up because planning authorities are not required by law to look after playgrounds. "My amendment to this bill will require planning authorities to properly invest in playgrounds. "Where there is any development, there is no loss of playgrounds in a town or a city." In January Hayes held a debate in parliament on improving public parks. He highlighted the situation in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch after the councillor in charge of parks and gardens in the towns told the BBC the authority has been forced to close some play parks "because we haven't the money to keep maintaining them". Parents in Boscombe said that the local playground had deteriorated so badly their children no longer want to play there. Hayes added: "You walk through a town like Bournemouth and you see a playground boarded up, it just fills you with hopelessness. "It looks like a blight, children can not learn or develop social skills and they can not improve their mental health through play. "We keep telling children to get off their phones and screens, but if we're not providing outdoor play opportunities, we're not sending the right signal". "This is a call on all councils to invest in play opportunities because we've seen over a decade or more nearly 1,000 playgrounds closed across the country." You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X, or Instagram. 'It's heart-breaking council can't afford playground' New chief executive announced for council Community council plans divide residents' opinions Parents campaign to replace missing climbing frames BCP Council
BBC News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Bournemouth MP calls for developed playgrounds to be replaced
An MP is calling for a change in planning laws to ensure that any playgrounds lost to development will be replaced Hayes, Labour MP for Bournemouth East, has tabled an amendment to the government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill which has its second and third readings in the Commons this wants a "play sufficiency" duty in England to ensure no-net loss of existing play spaces due to development without equivalent provision by local council planners. The same rules already apply in Wales and Scotland. The MP says the subject is close to his heart: "Over the last decade, we've seen playgrounds boarded up because planning authorities are not required by law to look after playgrounds."My amendment to this bill will require planning authorities to properly invest in playgrounds."Where there is any development, there is no loss of playgrounds in a town or a city."In January Hayes held a debate in parliament on improving public highlighted the situation in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch after the councillor in charge of parks and gardens in the towns told the BBC the authority has been forced to close some play parks "because we haven't the money to keep maintaining them". Parents in Boscombe said that the local playground had deteriorated so badly their children no longer want to play added: "You walk through a town like Bournemouth and you see a playground boarded up, it just fills you with hopelessness."It looks like a blight, children can not learn or develop social skills and they can not improve their mental health through play."We keep telling children to get off their phones and screens, but if we're not providing outdoor play opportunities, we're not sending the right signal"."This is a call on all councils to invest in play opportunities because we've seen over a decade or more nearly 1,000 playgrounds closed across the country." You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
Daily Mail
05-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Hotelier who spent £55k building his own canal and 'giant cupcake' in back garden 'fears for his business' ahead of showdown with council
A hotelier who spent £55,000 building his own canal and a 'giant cupcake' wedding venue in his garden faces having to rip them down after falling foul of planning laws. Stephen Cuddy made headlines after building his own mini-canal system with a functioning lock and a narrowboat, which he converted into a swimming pool. He went on to construct a cupcake-shaped wedding venue within the grounds of Grimscote Manor Hotel in Coleshill, Warwickshire. Both creations were hailed by TV's George Clarke as being among the best 'Amazing Spaces' he had ever featured on the Channel 4 show. But it has now emerged Stephen didn't have council approval to build either. And he has been warned that both may have to be torn down if he doesn't get retrospective planning permission. Stephen, 59, fears will have no choice but to demolish his labours of love, as he can't afford the legal fees to fight the local authority after splashing out on the projects. He claims it would cost him up to £100,000 to defend their construction. The self-taught architect said: 'It's really stressing me out and I don't know what to do as I don't have the money to fight them. 'I had issues from the start with the council but I thought I could build these things as a result of my permitted development rights. 'I don't agree the canal is a structure, I thought it would be classed under landscaping and all it does is harvest rainfall. 'I think the cupcake might be a permanent structure if we do start hosting weddings there like we intended but at the moment it's not being used for that. 'You try and create all these beautiful things for people to enjoy and this is what happens. I'm sure they will try and make me pull them down. 'I fear for my business as these creations are a draw for people and we saw revenue increase when both were built - some people even come just to have a photo with it.' Stephen previously purchased a 35ft (10m) long vintage barge off eBay for £5,000 and spent £25,000 constructing an accurate reproduction of a Victorian canal lock to house it. He also built a redbrick lockkeeper's cottage, an outdoor patio within a decorative tunnel alcove and installed a 29ft (8m) long swimming pool inside the barge. Stephen then spent £25,000 building the 'world's biggest cupcake' on a reinforced stable roof which he had planned to use for weddings or to host tea parties. It has an unsupported, domed roof without any vertical central upright. George Clarke described it as 'Genuinely one of my favourite Amazing Spaces builds of all time.' North Warwickshire District Council also say a marquee erected at the hotel breaches planning laws and also requires planning permission. Stephen added: 'They also have issues with the marquee which I've had for over ten years at which point you can claim lawful use regardless of permission. 'But because I took it down during Covid, they are also pulling me up on that as it doesn't come under the ten year lawful use period. 'I previously obtained the relevant permissions for the marquee when it was first erected in 2009 but that wasn't without a fight which cost £50,000 in legal fees. 'It was originally refused on safety grounds because of the increased traffic - and that is why I fear the worst now if they try to pull the same trick again. 'They want me to send in a joint application for all three things, but I think they should all be dealt with separately. I don't even know why they suddenly have an issue with marquee. 'It's a £100,000 defence I've estimated if I fight it all the way, which I just don't have. 'We've had no complaints whatsoever, exactly the opposite, everyone loves them. There would be uproar if I had to tear them down. 'I'm just trying to run a business and want to move on to other projects but have this lingering over me now. 'I think the council need a lesson in how to deal people with a bit of tact and humility instead of threats because this has really broken me.' The council says Mr Cuddy (pictured) can still opt to apply for full planning permission if he wants to keep all of the things he has built North Warwickshire District Council said several options were still open to Stephen before enforcement action would be taken. In a letter to Stephen, a planning officer said: 'During the subsequent tour of the hotel grounds, breaches of planning control were identified here. 'Located between the hotel building and the marquee is a round structure with a turret style roof, externally this structure resembles the shape of a cupcake. 'It is nearing completion and has been constructed on top of an existing stable block structure. 'There is no permitted development rights afforded to C1 Hotel use land by the GPDO that would allow for this structure without the need for planning permission. 'Upon entry to the site, a canal feature comprising a to scale canal lock, boat and tunnel can be seen. 'There is no planning permission to account for this. This is not "permitted development" and would be considered an engineering operation. 'It can be seen via Streetview imagery that this development was constructed between November 2021 and July 2023. 'It will need to be shown in a retrospective full planning application for formal consideration. 'For the avoidance of formal enforcement action, you are advised to submit a valid 'Full Planning Application' detailing retention of the Wedding Marquee, 'Cupcake' structure and Canal feature, as identified above. 'If you do not wish to apply for retrospective planning permission, a timeframe for removal of these developments may need to be agreed.' A North Warwickshire Borough Council spokesperson said: 'We have explained the planning situation to Mr Cuddy and have outlined several options open to him.
