To consider the above report.

Land East of Hythe End Road, Wraysbury, Staines-Upon-Thames, Middlesex TW19 5AW

Members considered enforcement action following legal advice sought by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The Panel noted it was necessary to consider if lawful development certificate 97/75746 should be revoked and if it was expedient to give further consideration to the alleged intensification of the use of the site. There were two options Members had to choose from which were:

i.              Not to pursue the revocation of the Lawful Development Certificate dated 9 September 1998 and granted under reference 97/75746.

ii.             Not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation.

Members voted in favour of Option two which was not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation.

A vote was taken to defer the decision for one cycle so that Members could have more time to digest the information prior to making a decision. The motion was proposed by Councillor C. Rayner and seconded by Councillor Beer. However, the motion was not successful. Five Councillors voted against the motion (Cllrs M. Airey, L. Evans, Hilton, Luxton and Yong), and four Councillors voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs Beer, Lenton, C. Rayner and Sharpe).

Councillor Hilton proposed a motion in support of the officers recommendations not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation. The motion was seconded by Councillor M. Airey. Six Councillors voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs M. Airey, Beer, L. Evans, Hilton, Luxton and Yong. Two Councillors voted against (C. Rayner and Sharpe) and one Councillor abstained from the vote (Cllr Lenton).

The Panel then considered two further options which were set out on page 60 of the agenda pack. They were listed as option 3 and option 4 and made up the second part of the enforcement action.

Option 3: To further consider the case of intensification in the use of the site with a view to serving an enforcement notice in relation to that allegation. Paragraph 7.10 of the report explained to pursue option 3, officers would need to build a case to demonstrate that a material change of use had occurred since the enforcement appeal decision. That was because the inspector detailed that the use of the site between 2003 and 2012 compared to the use in 2016 was not of a different definable character. Officers were not aware of any evidence that would substantiate such a claim.

Option 4: Not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation. Paragraph 7.11 of the report explained that it was open to Members to not give further consideration of the information in the report they considered this to be the preferred route.

Councillor Lenton requested it be specifically minuted that he was dissatisfied that the legal advice provided to Officers was exempt from the public and had been kept away from public scrutiny in Part II. The Legal Advisor to the Panel explained that the information and advice received from Counsel was legally privileged and that as much of the information had remained in the public domain as legally possible.

Councillor Yong made a proposal in support of Option 4 and Councillor Hilton seconded the motion. Six Councillors voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs M. Airey, Beer, L. Evans, Hilton, Luxton and Yong) and three Councillors voted against the motion (Cllrs Lenton, C. Rayner and Sharpe).