News

| Submit Comments | View Comments (3)
Judge Alan Gore QC said the court would not lightly interfere with an inspector’s planning judgment
Judge Alan Gore QC said the court would not lightly interfere with an inspector’s planning judgment
advertisement

Farmer Roy Maslin loses Barkham Manor Farm planning battle


July 25, 2012

A farmer must demolish three buildings on his Barkham land which are too high and are ‘harmful to the character and appearance of the area’.

Roy Maslin lost his High Court fight to overturn orders that he must demolish the buildings at Barkham Manor Farm.

Mr Maslin had sought permission to bring a full High Court challenge to a Government planning inspector’s decision upholding Wokingham Borough Council’s decision to issue enforcement notices demanding the demolition of the three buildings.

However, Judge Alan Gore QC ruled on Monday that Mr Maslin’s case was not arguable and said the court would not lightly interfere with an inspector’s exercise of planning judgment.

Mr Maslin was granted planning permission for the three units in 2006, but the actual buildings differed from the approved plans.

The borough issued enforcement notices demanding the alteration of all three units in line with the plans, or their demolition.

Mr Maslin launched an appeal over two of the buildings, Unit A which he built as a toilet and rest room for staff and was found to be 2.1 metres too high, and Unit B, a store for hay, straw and feed, which was 1.8 metres too high.

However, the inspector found the increased bulk of the buildings was ‘significant’ and they ‘represented excessive encroachment in the countryside that would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area’.

Mr Maslin claimed the inspector had failed to carry out an appropriate balancing exercise in concluding that demolition was not an excessive requirement. He claimed the inspector’s approach was materially flawed and procedurally unfair.

However, the judge ruled none of his grounds of challenge were sufficiently arguable to justify granting permission for a full hearing.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (3)
advertisement

Add Your Comment

All comments posted here should abide by our Community Policy

Most recent user comments 3 of 3

   Well done all concerned.

We live in a democracy. People who deliberately flaunt the rules deserve punishment.

Put the stocks back in Market Place!
come on lads
26/07/2012 at 13:40 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Anyone who ignores planning permission constraints deserves to be made to correct the differences. If demolition is the easiest solution so be it. The council should be strongly supported in actions such as this.
PoneRana, Wokingham
26/07/2012 at 11:05 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   So he gets planning permission for one thing and does something else. He didn't play by the rules, so I have no sympathy.
Smiffy, Reading
26/07/2012 at 10:05 Offensive or Inappropriate?
 
Homes / Jobs Search
 
Jobs Homes

Brought to you by

Fish4jobs
Newsletter Sign Up
 
Sign up to the
weekly news
update


Submit
Loading poll, please wait...