A High Court judgment against a local garden centre would see the businesses involved “adversely affected” and they would struggle to find new premises.
That was the verdict of Judge Karen Walden-Smith over the ongoing dispute between Hare Hatch Sheeplands and Wokingham Borough Council.
Last week, she declared that the businesses deemed to be operating on green belt land should be moved on by May 1 this year.
But after the hearing, Sheeplands owner Rob Scott said: “The next step is for my legal team to view the reworded document and advise me on what action we can now take.
“I will not know what that is until we have all had a chance to get together and discuss the options.”
The dispute goes back several years and is around the expansion of the garden centre. The site has planning permission for use as a horticultural nursery together with a permitted farm shop and butchery.
Wokingham Borough Council argued that Mr Scott had taken over green belt land for uses that go beyond operating a nursery with a cafe. The High Court sided with the council and dismissed Sheeplands’ case.
Judge Karen Walden-Smith’s judgment said that the 10-weeks notice for Sheeplands to comply was “a generous period of time for the businesses to find alternative sites”.
She also noted that her decision would cause financial problems for both Sheeplands owner Rob Scott and the businesses affected, in some cases “catastrophic”.
In her judgment, she noted: “I have no doubt that all of these individuals are hard-working operators of small businesses who will be adversely affected if they are made subject to an injunction, both personally and with respect to their own families, but also with respect to their employees and their families.”
The businesses in breach of the planning notice are:
- An antique shop
- Hot tub sales
- Garden building sales
- A garden furniture retailer
- A children’s play area
- An unauthorised extension to the café area
- A pet food shop
- An animal petting area.
One of the businesses affected, Bell Antiques, told the High Court they would not be in a financial position to start up in another shop and would have to trade from markets and antique fayres in future. The business had featured last year in an edition of the BBC’s Antiques Road Trip.
Judge Walden-Smith also noted that Rob Scott, the owner of Sheeplands, would face losses with the decision to enforce the planning notices made by Wokingham Borough Council.
She noted: “[Mr Scott] has heavily invested in the site and I am told that the effective closure of the business would result in extreme personal hardship upon himself and his new family.
“However, he has made it clear through the past years that he will not abide by the planning controls or the enforcement notice. The imposition of an injunction is the only means by which the planning control can be upheld.”
She also ordered Mr Scott to pay the council’s costs, with full details to be agreed, with an interim payment of £20,000 to be paid within 28 days. However, she added: “I will hear further submissions with respect to costs after the handing down of this judgment”.
Wokingham Borough Council said that the decision means that it will now enforce action against the existing illegal uses at the site, and prevent further breaches of planning law.
“This is a difficult situation because we know there is local support for Hare Hatch Sheeplands and that some businesses on the site will be adversely affected by the judgment,” said Cllr Mark Ashwell, Wokingham Borough Council’s executive member for planning and regeneration.
“But the truth is, while we’ve been seeking a compromise with the landowners in good faith, they’ve been using more and more green belt illegally.”
He added: “This is not an action we have taken lightly. The judge’s decision is testament to our council’s resilience in the robust defence of our green belt.
“The green belt must be protected from harm caused by unauthorised activity even if some people support that activity.”
A brief history from the court judgment
Judge Walden-Smith summarised the dispute between the council and Hare Hatch Sheeplands in her judgment. The following information is taken from her summary.
Mr Scott and his then wife bought the site in 1993, when it was derelict.
In 2007, it received planning permission to be a horticultural nursery with a farm shop, a cafe and a house with a restriction that it is to be occupied for agricultural or horticultural purposes.
In the same year, an application for change of use to a farm shop was approved with a condition that goods should be limited to fresh farm produce within a 10 mile radius, but this condition was relaxed on appeal.
The cafe, which is on green belt land, was permitted after appeal.
In 2008, the butchery was approved on condition that it was limited to a retail butcher.
Judge Walden-Smith noted: “Other applications for planning permission were refused: for the erection of a building on green belt grounds, for the erection of a building for retail sales of pet foods and accessories was refused on green belt grounds, for change of use of display area to a restaurant refused on green belt grounds, for the change of use from glasshouses to retail sales and display was refused on green belt grounds, the proposed redesign and redevelopment of horticultural site including increase in retail sales space, involving demolition and replacement building plus revised parking layout and additional landscaping was refused on green belt grounds (and an appeal was withdrawn), and an application for the retention of two display conservatories was refused, and an appeal was withdrawn.
“Where permission was refused and appeals against refusal dismissed, the Planning Inspector has referred to the negative impact on the openness of the green belt and an increase of visitors.”
Judge Walden-Smith noted that in 2012, Wokingham Borough Council served an enforcement notice “alleging the unauthorised change of use to a garden centre with retail and residential uses, including a mobile home. This enforcement notice was withdrawn on the basis that further unauthorised uses had commenced and on 20 August 2013 a further notice was served.
“The enforcement notice required cessation of the unauthorised use of land for retail, restaurant/café and children’s play uses, removal of items, goods equipment and structures associated with these uses and cessation of the use of the land for the stationing of the mobile home and its removal from the site, along with the excavation of the hard-surfaced areas,” the judge said.
Sheeplands appealed, but withdrew them. Judge Walden-Smith said: “[Mr Scott] contends that he had entered into discussions with the Claimant prior to the submission of evidence for the appeal and that he withdrew the appeal on the basis of discussions he had.”
But the application was refused on March 31, 2015, and an appeal dismissed.
Wokingham Borough Council then wrote to Sheeplands the same day, “requiring a timetable for compliance with the notice”, with a follow-up letter sent on April 17, 2015 following a site visit on April 14.
Another site visit took place on May 14, 2016.
Sheeplands argued that “the enforcement notice was a nullity” in letters sent in August 2015, something disputed by Wokingham Borough Council in October that year.
At the same time, Sheeplands lodged a new planning application for the proposed change of use of land and buildings to a children’s play area and recreational farm, but Wokingham Borough Council “decided not to determine these applications”.
The judgment can be read in full here
