Scottish Government reporter tells man to bring down chalet

A man has failed to persuade the Scottish Government to cancel enforcement action taken against him by the local authority relating to a “chalet” positioned on land north of Balthayock without planning permission.

Earlier this year enforcement officers ordered Ross Townsley to stop anyone staying in the structure said to be on land north west of Craignorth House and remove it from the area by the end of January next year.

The officers also ordered Mr Townsley to rip up an area of hardstanding they said had also been formed on the site without consent.

But in July an agent acting for Mr Townsley wrote to the Scottish Government claiming the land was first occupied more than four years ago and he was therefore “immune” from enforcement action under a specific part of planning law.

Emelda Maclean of About Planning argued in an appeal statement: “The appellant considers that [a] material change of use of the site for permanent residential occupation occurred over four years ago ... and is therefore immune from enforcement action.”

However, a reporter working for the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division has since upheld the enforcement action taken against Mr Townsley saying he enjoys no such immunity.

Allison Coard reached her conclusion after noting the “chalet” used to be a residential caravan and to have any kind of immunity from enforcement action

Mr Townsley would have to demonstrate someone had been staying in it for more than 10 years.

She said in her decision notice: “The appellant has stated that they originally sited a caravan on the site over four years ago, which was replaced around three years ago with a residential caravan/timber lodge.

“However, it is notable that the appellant’s evidence does not demonstrate the point at which a caravan was stationed on the site for the purposes of human habitation or the date at which it was subsequently occupied.

“Consequently the appellant has failed to provide any evidence of continuous residential occupation of a caravan at the site for 10 years.

“Given my conclusion above that the chalet is appropriately defined as a caravan [this] applies a 10year time limit.

“Accordingly the matters alleged to have occurred would not be immune from enforcement.”

Ms Coard has, however, agreed to grant Mr Townsley an extended period to remove the chalet from the site.

She said in her decision notice: “I understand that upholding the notice and removal of the chalet would require the appellant not only to carry out the required works to re-instate the site but also to find alternative accommodation.

“In acknowledging these difficulties and potential constraints on the availability of alternative accommodation, I consider the period for compliance should be extended to nine months.”