Property owner ordered to cease residential use of Bedford building after losing enforcement notice appeal

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
Six month deadline set

A property owner has been ordered to stop using a Bedford building for residential use within six months and pay partial costs after losing their enforcement notice appeal.

Bedford Borough Council’s Planning Committee heard yesterday (July 17) that the enforcement notice relating to the unauthorised creation of four flats at 127a, Marlborough Road, Bedford.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ian Johnson, manager for heritage & planning compliance at the borough council, added that all the bathroom and kitchen suites must be removed to “further discouraged residential occupation”.

127a, Marlborough Road, Bedford Screenshot Google Streetview (C)2023 Google Image captured June 2023.127a, Marlborough Road, Bedford Screenshot Google Streetview (C)2023 Google Image captured June 2023.
127a, Marlborough Road, Bedford Screenshot Google Streetview (C)2023 Google Image captured June 2023.

“If that’s not done within the six month period following the inspector’s decision the council will potentially pursue legal action to enforce the notice,” he said.

A report presented to the committee said the inspector found that the appellant had provided information relating to one of their grounds of appeal that had been shown to be “manifestly inaccurate and untrue”.

Consequently, they determined that the appellant had “behaved unreasonably” and considered that a partial award of costs was justified relating to that ground.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Enforcement Notice related to the change of use of the land from a sui generis lock-up garage to 4 flats (C3).

‘Sui generis’ buildings are those that do not fall within any particular use class.

The appellant had claimed that the Council was out of time to take enforcement action.

The report said that the dates included in the appellant’s evidence did not correspond with the council’s own evidence, including photographs taken by council officers at the time in question.

The inspector was not satisfied that the appellant’s evidence was sufficiently precise and unambiguous to show that the development was immune from the enforcement action.