TAXPAYERS will have to pick up part of the costs of a planning appeal after enforcement action by the Forest Council was deemed incorrect.

The council had taken action over the change of use of property and land in Laundry Lane, Newland as well as building works.

The council had asserted that Lady Tanya Somerset and Mr Francois Norris changed the use of three separate “planning units” – Tan House, Hillside Retreat and agricultural land – into one with a mixed use.

Planning inspector John Braithwaite said he needed to establish whether there were three units and that they had accurately described.

He said it was incorrect to describe Tan House as a “single family dwelling house” as it was used as bed and breakfast.

Hillside Retreat is a separate dwelling and not part of an events business as alleged. The council was not able to show when it considered the change of use to have taken place.

Farming ceased on the land in 1990 and Mr Braithwaite said there was plenty of evidence that it was now effectively a large garden.

Mr Braithwaite concluded: “There are several reasons why the Appellants, on the basis of the alleged material change of use as set out in the enforcement notice, cannot know what they have done wrong. “The inclusion of agricultural land use… is incorrect and confusing, and the independent residential use of Hillside Retreat is not recognised.

“This latter matter is compelling in itself and leads to a conclusion that the alleged material change of use of the land is wrong.

“The allegation would need wholesale variation to accurately reflect the previous and current uses of the land. The allegation cannot be varied without causing injustice to the appellants and, possibly, to the council.”

He therefore allowed that part of the appeal.

Mr Braithwaite also allowed the appeal in relation to changes in ground levels to make a parking area.

He said there was nothing to suggest more than a thin layer had been removed so there were no “material changes”.

The main issues with regards to the retaining walls, hardstanding and drainage works was the effect on the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the setting of the historic Tan House.

The inspector found the neither the hardstanding nor cars parked on it would have a detrimental effect so planning permission was granted.

The council issued the notice relating to the change of use without further enquiries after receiving information about Hillside.

In considering costs, Mr Braithwaite concluded: “It was unreasonable for the Council to presume the use of Hillside Retreat in drafting the enforcement notice when in receipt of information that contradicted that presumption.

“The Council did not act unreasonably in taking enforcement action against the unauthorised developments carried out on the land. The council has acted unreasonably, however, in drafting a fundamentally flawed alleged material change of use and the Appellants have incurred wasted expense in appealing.”

He awarded costs in relation to the change of use element.