Buckinghamshire Council issued an enforcement notice after discovering the structure at a property on Wexham Street had been built without consent.
The authority gave the homeowner three months to remove the building and clear all materials from the site.
Council officials said the building lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and branded it “harmful” and “inappropriate” for the area. They refused to grant retrospective planning permission and ordered the demolition.
The homeowner appealed the notice, taking the case to the government’s Planning Inspectorate. However, the inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the council’s decision, meaning the structure must now be torn down.
In his decision, Inspector Gareth Symons said there was only one ground of appeal, which related to the time allowed for compliance rather than the planning merits of the case.
He added that, because of this, there was no need to visit the site or assess the building’s appearance or its impact on the Green Belt.
He also addressed claims by the homeowner that they could use permitted development rights to rebuild a similar structure if the current one was demolished.
He said: “There is also no deemed planning application before me. The appellant has referred to the possibility of using permitted development rights to rebuild a very similar replacement building if the appeal building is demolished.
“However, there is no supporting information to support the claim that such permitted development rights would apply.
“The appellant also does not say that they would, in fact, rebuild the structure. Furthermore, the Council refer to the current building not being permitted development because of its height and closeness to the boundary meaning that it exceeds permitted development limitations.
“This has not been disputed by the appellant. This being the case, a new structure of similar size in the same position would also not be permitted development.
“Taking all this in the round, a fallback position of implementing permitted development rights has not been made out and it would thus have had very little weight when considering a appeal.”
Finally, Mr Symons found no reason to extend the three-month deadline set by the council, saying the homeowner had not justified why more time was needed.
He said: “The appellant has not explained why the planning, funding and execution of the safe and proper demolition of the building would take longer than the three months allowed by the notice. I can see no substantive reason why the time given to comply with the notice falls short of what should be reasonably allowed.”
Comments are closed.