Contractor told to remove vehicles in planning row between council and Telford zoo

Appellant Jodie McCabe said that the land has been used for ‘many years’ for storing farm machinery and materials such as fencing for the farm.

However, since 2018 the site has been used by the landscape contractor, Mr Tranter for the parking and storage of small tractors, agricultural/landscaping implements, a digger, three steel shipping containers, vans and trailers.

Telford & Wrekin Council alleged that without planning permission the use of the land has changed to a ‘landscape contractor's storage yard’ with the siting of storage containers and the laying of stone and hardcore.

Subsequently the council has issued four different enforcement notices. A planning inspector quashed one of the enforcement notices and an appeal against another notice was launched last year.

Planning inspector S A Hanson handed a split decision to the second appeal against an enforcement notice.

“While the appellant does not argue that the alleged breach of planning has not occurred, they do contest that the land included in the notice far exceeds what is actually in use on the ground as a storage yard for the landscaping business,” he concluded.

“To clarify this position, they have included a plan with their submissions that identifies the area of land that is used solely by Mr Tranter (the contractor). The remainder of the land is said to be occupied by Hoo Zoo and by an overgrown Christmas tree plantation.

“The only static equipment on site is the shipping containers and these are grouped together close to the entrance.

“Views into the site are limited to those from the access road (private road owned by the Ministry of Defence off Humber Lane) at the point of the entrance. In this respect the site is sufficiently screened so not to have a harmful visual effect on its surroundings.”

However, the inspector concluded that the contractor who used the site was a ’commercial enterprise’ who provided employment for four people.

“I note the appellant’s final comments submission states that the business is the primary landscape contractors for Hoo Zoo, but there is nothing to support this statement,” the inspector found.

“Moreover, the letter from Mr Tranter describes his area of operation being the West Midlands with examples of local jobs for Homes England and ongoing maintenance work for Taylor Wimpey sites both locally and throughout the West Midlands.

“Overall, while I consider that the development does not have a harmful effect on the landscape setting, the appeal site does not represent a suitable location for the storage yard.”

However, the planning inspector made alterations to the enforcement notice from Telford & Wrekin Council stating that the applicant had laid stone and hardcore on the site.

“The appellant states that the stone and hardcore areas within the site have been in situ for several years and having seen how they are enveloped into the woodland floor I have no reason to disagree,” the inspector found.

“In these circumstances, I consider that removing the material would likely be more damaging to the natural environment. As such, I will vary the terms of the notice and delete the requirement that seeks their removal.”

The inspector also increased the time the landscape contractor to find an alternative storage premises from six to nine months.

“The area is clearly the unit occupied by the landscape contractor and it is physically and functionally distinguishable from the other land,” the inspector concluded.

“The land occupied by Mr Tranter (the contractor) is a separate unit of occupation and its use is physically and functionally distinct from Hoo Zoo. It is occupied for different and unrelated purposes. Therefore, as a matter of fact and degree, I consider that a separate planning unit has been established.”