Wales

Pembrokeshire wheeled shed fails to escape planning rules

James Kershaw broke planning regulations by building a shed in front of a 12th Century priory Image copyright Pembrokeshire Council
Image caption James Kershaw broke planning regulations by building a shed in front of a 12th Century priory

A man who fitted wheels to a shed to avoid planning regulations has lost his legal battle.

James Kershaw claimed his modifications meant the construction was no longer a building and so not subject to the law.

But the 39-year-old was convicted of not complying with an enforcement notice issued by Pembrokeshire council.

He was fined £700, ordered to pay costs of £2,244.04 and a victim surcharge of £70 court costs.

The outhouse failed to meet regulations because it was built in front of 12th century Pill Priory, near Milford Haven, on land owned by Kershaw.

District Judge Chris James told Llanelli Magistrates' Court last Friday he was satisfied the shed remained a building despite its wheels.

The judge said he did not believe Kershaw's claim the shed was intended to be moved around the yard, nor that that was possible.

He found the enforcement notice was valid, the defendant clearly understood what was required of him, and that adding wheels was an attempt to evade authority control.

Judge James delivered his judgement following an earlier hearing at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court.

Image copyright Pembrokshire Council
Image caption The judge said adding wheels was an attempt to evade authority control

It was said then that in 2015 Kershaw erected the outhouse at Pill Priory without planning permission.

The authority served Kershaw with a notice requiring its demolition on the basis of harm to the adjacent ruins - a scheduled ancient monument and Grade II listed building.

Judge James said that there was an element of deliberate defiance by the defendant.

He referred to the planning inspector's words which described the shed as a "clumsy and monolithic addition" that failed to preserve the priory's setting.

Matthew Graham Paul, defending, said his client made a deliberate decision to test the legal position but that his actions were not for personal gain.

He said Kershaw needed a shed for his business tools.

Mr Kershaw plans to appeal but declined to comment.

More on this story