Market Drayton couple hit back in swimming lessons planning row
A couple who ran private swimming lessons from their home have hit back at suggestions the business was "not lawful".
Chris and Amanda Williams claimed they had not been required to pay business rates for the operation they have run at their home at Hunky Dory in Tern View, Market Drayton.
They submitted a retrospective planning application to provide the lessons in 2015.
But Shropshire Council objected to the plans due to concerns about accounts not being provided to show the turnover of the business from 2005 to 2015, and no business rates being been paid for the address to date.
The outcome of the planning row will be decided by Government planning inspector Peter Drew, who heard evidence of the case at a public inquiry at Shirehall in Shrewsbury on Wednesday.
A statement on behalf of Mrs Williams said: "I believe that the evidence is sound in respect of the latter part of the 10-year period in that I have produced accounts and business records to show that the business was on a firm and robust standing.
"It is not uncommon for businesses just starting out not to have business accounts.
"While this may be contrary to tax rules, it is not necessary for such documents to be produced to prove in planning terms that the business existed.
"The instructor was in charge of the financial side of the swimming lessons and I did not make any charge to her or the use of the pool.
"I have no records of any tax arrangements she may have had in place for this period and therefore I cannot produce them.
"It is not always necessary for business rates to be paid for the operation of a domestic property. I was not aware that this may have been an issue for giving swimming lessons.
"My conclusion is that no business rates are payable for the operation and they should not have been referred to in the reason for refusing the certificate."
Giving evidence at the inquiry, Sarah Hancock said her son and daughter both had lessons there.
"They were paid for and were very well structured. That is why we started going," she said.
A report by Shropshire Council case officer Alison Groom said: "The evidence submitted is not enough on the balance of probabilities to demonstrate that a material change of use has taken place for a 10-year period of continuous use preceding the date of the application. The evidence is ambiguous.
"The supporting statement mentions a business partner between 2005 and 2010, however no details of this person have been provided.
"In addition, no accounts have been provided to show the turnover of the business in the period 2005 to 2015 and no business rates have been paid for at this address to date.
"Therefore, this application is deemed as on the balance of probability as not lawful."
A decision regarding the appeal is expected in the coming months.
