Builder fined for unauthorised development

The Royal Borough has reinforced its determination to clamp down on unauthorised buildings after a local builder was found guilty of failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice.

David Rawlins, of Binfield, near Bracknell, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay the council's costs of £595 when he appeared at Maidenhead Magistrates court on Wednesday (March 14) after a lengthy prosecution process and four appearances in court.

In March 2004 Mr Rawlins constructed a large building on green belt land behind Rogers Stores on Broadmoor Road in Waltham St Lawrence.  The Royal Borough wrote to Mr Rawlins expressing concern about the unauthorised development and subsequently issued an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the building.

In April 2004 Mr Rawlins submitted a planning application to retain the unauthorised building for business use.  This was refused by planners as "inappropriate development in the Green Belt".

Mr Rawlins appealed to the planning inspectorate against both the planning decision and the enforcement notice but the appeal was dismissed in July 2005.

In September 2005 he then submitted a planning application for the unauthorised building to be used as a two-bedroom dwelling. This was also refused by planners and once again the owner appealed – but this appeal was also dismissed by the planning inspectorate because of the inappropriateness of the development and also the significant and overriding harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt.

Eric Nicol, Royal Borough enforcement officer, said: "It is unfortunate that we have to go to these lengths to achieve compliance with the planning legislation – but I hope that this case will highlight our determination and commitment to ensure that compliance.

"We need to look after the local area and we do have a number of planning enforcement tools to help us with this task.

"However this is not the end of the matter as the enforcement notice remains in place and it has yet to be complied with.  Mr Rawlins does face the prospect of further enforcement action if the building is still not removed in accordance with that notice."