QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KEELEY||(CLAIMANT)|
|CANTERBURY CROWN COURT||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Crown Copyright ©
"If it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area, they may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section.
(2) The notice shall require such steps for remedying the condition of the land as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified."
The period specified in this case by the council was 1 month.
"A person on whom a notice under section 215 is served, or any other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates, may, at any time within the period specified in the notice as the period at the end of which it is to take effect, appeal against the notice on any of the following grounds-
(a) that the condition of the land to which the notice relates does not adversely affect the amenity of any part of the area of the local planning authority who served the notice, or of any adjoining area;
(b) that the condition of the land to which notice relates is attributable to, and such as results in the ordinary course of events from, the carrying of operations or a use of land which is not in contravention of Part III;
(c) that the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary for preventing the condition of the land from adversely affecting the amenity of any part of the area of the local planning authority who served the notice, or of any adjoining area;
(d) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any steps required by the notice are to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed."
The magistrates dismissed the appeal and the Crown Court dismissed Mr Keeley's further appeal against that dismissal, given that it extended this time for compliance.
"I can confirm that Canterbury City Council will not regard the above Notice to be in breach, if the items that remain on the land are those which are incidental to the normal residential use and reasonable enjoyment of the property by any person residing at and using the dwelling house as his or her home. This would be based on the authorised planning use of the land at the date of an inspection. Presently the authorised planning use of the land is one dwelling house with residential curtilage."
'To remove body panels, scrap motorcars, vehicle spares and tyres and limit the boats and caravans and motor bikes to what is reasonable for normal residential use, taking into consideration the size and the number of people living at the residence and the impact of any boats or motor bikes and caravans, if visible, would have on the area.'