2 weeks Ago
Government officials have upheld a decision requiring a couple living at a horse training business to leave. Broadland Council issued Weston Equestrian Centre in Weston Longville with an enforcement notice after discovering a member of staff was living permanently at a holiday let. The occupants appealed this decision to the government's Planning Inspectorate, requesting that their case be "considered sympathetically" due to difficulty in finding suitable alternative accommodation.
However, the inspector argued that the couple living at the holiday let had had sufficient time to relocate, and ruled in favour of the council - upholding the enforcement notice. Weston Equestrian Centre in Weston Longville has four on-site lodges which it uses for temporary accommodation, allowing visitors and holidaymakers to stay for up to six weeks but no more. Planning permission to convert one of the units into permanent housing for a full-time worker was granted in April last year, but a second unit is also being occupied permanently, according to Broadland Council, which breaches its conditions of tenancy.
The Broadland District Council offices (Image: Denise Bradley) READ MORE: Villagers defeated in 'David and Goliath' battle against 100 new homes The council issued an enforcement notice in May and required the occupants to cease using the holiday unit as their main residence - which was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. In a statement, they said: "We have looked to see whether we could find suitable alternative accommodation. I am sure the council appreciate rental accommodation, whether private or public sector, is scarce and at a premium.
"We are caught in a dilemma." Ken McEntee, the inspector reviewing the case, said he believed the couple had had enough time to source new accommodation, particularly as enforcement action has been suspended during the review. This means the original order - requiring the couple to leave within 12 months - had essentially been extended.
He said: "While I can appreciate the occupiers’ difficult situation, I am also mindful that some four months have elapsed since the appeals were submitted with enforcement action effectively suspended. "I consider this period to be more than reasonable and proportionate. While I have sympathy with the occupiers' personal circumstances and in no way wish to appear dismissive of them, I cannot be satisfied there is good reason to extend the compliance period further.
".
