Telford property owner wins garden wrangle with council as inspector backs his case

A planning inspector has backed a property owner's bid to classify land at a property in Telford as private garden.

Adam Brittle had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after Telford & Wrekin Council refused to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness for the change of use in Red Lees, Ketley.

Planning inspector John Whalley decided that an apparent 'inconsistency' in Mr Brittle’s evidence should not mean a certificate should not be granted in the circumstances.

He quoted a legal case in his decision notice and concluded "if there is no evidence to contradict or make the applicant’s version of events less than probable and his evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous, the certificate should be granted."

Mr Brittle had applied in 2024 for the certificate at a property in Red Lees, in Ketley, which is next door to a property that was also in his family's ownership. The land was also in the family ownership but not designated as garden land.

He told the inspector that it was his understanding that the titles to both properties were purchased by his parents and grandparents in 1984 as one piece of land.

Mr Brittle told the inspector that in 2003 the property in question was separated from the original title and registered in his parents’ names.

The inspector, who visited the site on March 19, noted that Mr Brittle has submitted a statutory declaration that a large grassed area had been used as an extension of the existing garden since 2009.

Telford & Wrekin Council officials had pointed to an apparent inconsistency in Mr Brittle’s evidence after he used the name of the other property.

He had submitted a planning statement and statutory declaration which said the land had been used as private garden land for the other property.

Officials said they would be unable to grant the certificate because the declaration had "clearly stated that it had been used by both properties."

The inspector wrote: "I agree with the council that some inconsistency arises.

"It may be that as the same family have owned both for many years, it is possible that some sharing of land within each title could have taken place, or that errors of recollection may have caused apparent contradictions in statutory declarations.

"What I consider to be the case is that the submitted evidence, including a number of historic photographs, show that the use of all the land outlined in red on the application plan has been used as private garden land for more than 10 years."

The inspector noted that he was not "much persuaded by the thought that a significant or material change of use" had taken place in any event.

He concluded that the council's refusal "was not well founded and that the appeal should succeed."

He added that the garden use had "become lawful by the passage of time."