Fair game?

In support of an appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of a timber structure in an open field in Bedfordshire (DCS Number 400-017-670) the appellant described the structure as intended for the breeding of game birds. On this basis he claimed that it did not require planning permission as it was intended for agricultural use.

The inspector noted, however, that in response to a planning contravention notice the appellant had previously described the structure as a tree house for his eight-year-old son and friends to play in. The inspector observed that the structure appeared as a timber shed on a platform supported by wooden poles and having a balustrade balcony.

The Blog might have enquired as to why game birds required a balustraded balcony – cocktails on the verandah? The inspector was a little more shrewd, side-stepping the lack of consistency by explaining that even if it were the intention to use the structure for agricultural purposes it could not be permitted development under Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO as no application for prior approval had been made. That saved him from saying that it was a cock and bull story.

Readers wondering whether game bird rearing ought to be considered as agriculture, anyway, might wish to note that the subject is discussed in section 9.3343 of DCP Online.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>