Newark and Sherwood District Council to take no enforcement action over Gibsmere development

A planning authority has expressed its disappointment with a developer that broke the rules, but says making them revert to an approved design is not in the public interest.

A neighbour of the development in Gibsmere has been in dispute over the demolition and rebuild of barns for 22 months.

Lisa Hughes, business manager for planning at the planning authority, Newark and Sherwood District Council, said permission to convert two barns into homes was given on October 5, 2018.

“As part of the building work, the developers demolished a considerable part of one of the buildings, which was not permitted by the application,” she said.

“The district council has granted planning permission on two occasions for the conversion of barns at the property.

“Once work started we received a complaint that the works being undertaken were more than a conversion and represented a breach of planning control.

“Upon investigation our officers noted that demolition had taken place, which goes beyond what was permitted for the conversions, and invited a retrospective planning application to regularise the situation. The developer refused to do this.

“The district council takes planning enforcement and investigation extremely seriously.

“When considering whether to take formal action we must follow a raft of guidance laid down by central government. In this particular case although unlawfully carried out, the unauthorised development resulted in a small increase in height from the height of the original building, which was not considered to be so harmful that enforcement action was appropriate. Pursuing enforcement action, particularly one which would require the demolition of the property would have been disproportionate and would likely have resulted, if appealed, in significant costs against the council.

“I am extremely frustrated that the developer did breach the planning permission and then would not submit retrospective planning for the works. This is not in the spirit of being a considerate developer. Not considering local neighbours is extremely disappointing.

“It is a very fine balancing act when looking at cases such as this, but action has to be expedient and proportionate. Furthermore, in the interests of protecting tax-payers’ money, enforcing this particular case was not considered the most appropriate outcome.”

Neighbour Michael Jones, 58, a company director, said the council had been of little help during his 22-month ordeal.

He said Capla Developments Ltd, whom the Advertiser has been unable to contact, had made a complete mockery of the planning system.

Mr Jones said: “My house is an old Georgian farmhouse and when we moved in 12 years ago it was next to these old, dilapidated barns but quite attractive nonetheless.

“They are at least 200 years old but completely separated from our house and were sold by the original owners of our house and at the time they also managed to get planning permission for them.

“The planner told me not to worry as the planning permission would only be granted on the basis that whoever acquires it has to leave everything as is.

“That means it certainly can’t be any bigger, but then the barns were sold to Capla Developments Ltd.

“They came along and promptly knocked down the barns and then built it back one metre higher.

“Initially, I thought the notice would sort it but it hasn’t.

“I have asked the council what is the point in the planning system if someone flouts the rules they just let them get away with it.”

He received an offer from the developer’s lawyers to change the shape of the roof so it’s less imposing, an offer he said he wouldn’t be accepting because “a mockery of the planning system” had occurred.