Stables to come down

The Scottish Government has ruled two stable owners have to demolish four buildings in Kinross-shire after they unsuccessfully appealed against enforcement action taken against them by the council.

The local authority wrote to Charles and Charmaine Anne McLeish telling them to tear down the timber buildings at Dollar Equestrian near Blairingone back in July, but the pair instructed a development consultant to appeal against the enforcement notice.

The council said the buildings were only meant to stay up for two years after retrospective permission was granted for them back in 2014 but Derek Scott argued some of the buildings were“immune”from enforcement action because they should never have been included within the scope of that consent.

“It is not entirely clear to us why our clients sought consent for the erection of all four stable buildings retrospectively,”Derek Scott told the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) adding that the application was validated four years after two of the buildings had already gone up.

“Under the four year rule relating to operational (built development) ... two buildings would have been immune from enforcement action and in our opinion still are,”he continued.“As a consequence of this the application at the time should only have related to ... two buildings.”

Mr Scott also attempted to argue even if the pair were prepared to comply with the enforcement notice they would be unable to take the buildings down within the 90 day window they had been afforded by the local authority.

However, a reporter working for the DPEA has now ruled in a decision notice published online: “I am not able to be satisfied ... that all or any of the timber stable buildings were immune from enforcement action at the date of the grant of planning permission.

“In any event, that grant of planning permission retrospectively authorised the development of the stable buildings for a limited period, thereby resetting the timescale of any immunity period.The appeal ... therefore fails.”

He added:“I have been provided with no evidence sufficient to persuade me that there are any particular or site-specific reasons why the physical removal of the stable buildings could not be undertaken within the 90 days specified in the notice.

“I consider that the 90 days compliance period specified in the notice gives adequate time for its requirements to be met.”