News
Milford Haven: Legal battle over shed on wheels in court
THE OWNER and occupier of the residence known as Pill Priory, in Lower Priory, Milford Haven was in court last week (May 9) to argue that a shed that he built without planning permission was not a building, but a movable object.
The argument is that by putting it on wheels, James Kershaw had created a chatel and not a property subject to planning rules.
At Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court representatives from the Council said: “Pill Priory is a medieval priory. It is a highly sensitive. It is designated as a Grade 2* listed building and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. These designations denote that the property is nationally important.”
Kershaw, 39, who runs a gardening business, is accused of the offence of breaching the Enforcement Notice dated 26 September 2016 contrary to section 179 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In court, both parties agree that in 2015 the defendant constructed a shed in the garden at Pill Priory without the benefit of planning permission.
When the Council became aware of the shed, they said, they asked him to remove it. He refused. In these circumstances, the Council had little choice, they say, but to serve the notice to require the removal of the shed.
The court heard that Kershaw then appealed the notice. He argued that the notice ought to be quashed as the shed is not a building and so the breach of planning control has been mis-described on the face of the notice; and that he ought to be granted planning permission retrospectively for it.
But the council said it suspects that the defendant made the adaptions to the shed after the first appearance in the Magistrates’ Court “when he realised the serious legal position in which he found himself.”
This is something that Kershaw denied in court, supported by a witness, Mr Dai Garland, who said that he assisted in the alterations long before the legal proceedings had commenced.
In its skeleton argument, barrister for the Council, Jack Smyth of No.5 chambers wrote: “The fact that the shed is lightweight (made of plywood and ship lap) and no larger than the average static caravan is neither here nor there. Not all buildings need be big. Lots of buildings are small (such as a modest greenhouse or wendy-house). It is denied that the adaptation of the shed transforms it from a building to a chattel.
He went on: “Even if the defendant is right that the shed is no longer a building, the fact that it was a building when the notice was served and scrutinised by the Inspector does not render the notice a nullity. Whatever label one attaches to it (“shed
“building”; “structure”; “hut”), we are talking about the same wooden “thing”.
“The label does not constitute a deficiency sufficiently serious to make a notice bad on its face.
“Even if the defendant is right that the shed is no longer a building, he could have demolished it as required by the notice. It is not accepted that this action was impossible.
The Council barrister went on in his report to say: “The Court may be impressed by the creativity and imagination displayed by the
defendant (and those acting on his behalf).
“But, in truth, the legal argument advanced by him is little more than semantic sophistry. It provides no defence to the summons. If he had simply removed the shed as he was required to do, we would not find ourselves here.
“Whatever the legal “gloss” placed on the defendant’s argument, it is contrived and unconvincing. The Court is invited to dismiss the argument and find the charge proven.”
THE DEFENCE
In his submissions, barrister for the defence Mr Matthew Graham Paul of Civitas Chambers wrote: “Where a unit is designed to be mobile, and in particular where it has its own wheels, the Courts have tended to find it lacks permanence. In Measor v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Robin Purchas QC (a specialist in planning law) citing Barvis and Elitestone found there were ample grounds for his conclusion that the caravans which were the subject of the case did not constitute ‘buildings’ within [planning law].
“In the event that the Court disagrees that the adaptation of the shed so that it is not a building discharges the defendant’s obligations in complying with the notice (i.e. that it does not amount to ‘demolition’), it should nevertheless dismiss the charge because the Enforcement Notice is a nullity as it refers to a ‘building’.
“Secondly, if the shed was not a building on 12th February 2018 James Kershaw was in no position to demolish a building, as the Enforcement Notice purported to require. The action required by the EN was impossible, which has also been held to constitute a defence to failing to comply with the requirements of an Enforcement Notice by rendering it a nullity.”
Following lengthy legal submissions the judge decided to reserve judgement until next month.
The case was adjourned until 14th June 2019 for District Judge Chris James to deliver his judgement at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court.
News
Closure of Tata Steel’s coke ovens sparks political and union backlash
THE recent announcement by Tata Steel to close the coke ovens at its Port Talbot plant in South Wales has ignited a firestorm of political and industrial action, highlighting the deepening crisis within the British steel industry and the challenges facing the transition to green steel.
Jo Stevens MP, the Shadow Welsh Secretary, expressed her concerns over the impact of the closure on the Welsh steel industry and the workers affected. Stevens emphasized the need for assurances about the workers’ immediate future and pledged that a UK Labour government would invest in the steel industry to support the transition to green steel, harnessing the skills, talent, and ambition of Welsh steelworkers.
The closure, slated for Wednesday due to concerns over the ovens’ “operational stability,” has been criticized by regional Senedd Members for South Wales West, Tom Giffard MS, and Dr. Altaf Hussain MS. They accused the Labour Welsh Government of neglecting its support for the Tata Steelworks in Port Talbot, highlighting a lack of financial assistance since 2019 and calling for a change in response to the current developments.
Unite, the UK’s leading union, has been vocal in its opposition to Tata’s decision, describing it as a shock and a “result of years of betrayal.” The union criticized Tata for not disclosing the imminent risk of closure during recent consultations and announced a ballot for industrial action among 1,500 Tata workers. Unite insists there should be no job losses at Port Talbot or Llanwern and that a blast furnace should remain operational.
Peter Hughes, Unite’s regional secretary for Wales, called for Tata to halt its closure plans in anticipation of Labour’s promised £3 billion investment to rejuvenate the UK steel industry. He accused Tata of managing the decline of UK steel while accepting government subsidies, describing the company’s actions as “deliberate industrial vandalism.”
The closure has not only raised concerns about the future of steel production in the UK but also spotlighted the political and economic strategies required to ensure the industry’s survival and transition towards more sustainable practices. The unfolding situation underscores the need for a collaborative approach between the government, industry stakeholders, and the workforce to navigate the complex challenges ahead.
News
Firefighters tackle blaze at block of garages in Monkton
ONE person was injured as a result of a sunday afternoon garage fire in a block of garages in Monkton.
A spokesperson for Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service told The Pembrokeshire Herald said: “At 1.31pm on March 17, Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven crews were called to extinguish a fire in an alight central garage and were forced to use two breathing apparatus and two hose reels.
“The firefighters reportedly left the scene at 3.02pm after continuing to dampen the fire and check for fire spread.
“The casualty was treated by ambulance service personnel also in attendance.”
The police confirmed that a garage fire had been dealt with by Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and Welsh Ambulance Service attended.
News
Air ambulance called following incident at Aldi Pembroke Dock
THE WALES AIR AMBULANCE, along with the Welsh Ambulance Service and police were called on Monday morning to an incident at the Aldi supermarket car park in Pembroke Dock.
The Herald understands that the alarm was raised after a car hit a person in the car park after 9am.
We have been told that the incident involved a local taxi.
The emergency services have been asked for a comment.
MORE TO FOLLOW
-
Community5 days ago
Two Welsh codebreakers who helped shorten WWII celebrate their 100th birthdays
-
Community1 day ago
Residents hit back after YouTube video shows Milford ‘in decline’
-
Crime6 days ago
Local carer admits defrauding client by more than £7,000
-
Crime6 days ago
Dramatic arrest of three men after man hospitalised in assault
-
News10 hours ago
Air ambulance called following incident at Aldi Pembroke Dock
-
News4 days ago
Pembroke Dock grants scandal: A decade of deception unravelled
-
News5 days ago
Llŷr Davies, 16, was kind, funny and charming, says bereaved family
-
Crime7 days ago
Neyland motorist caught driving Mercedes four times over the limit