resident to demolish his home in New Milton, Hampshire, on the basis that it was erected unlawfully in breach of planning control.
Following a public inquiry, the Inspector held that although Ken Duffy's bungalow at Lakeside, North Drive, Ossemsley had been sited incorrectly in breach of planning control, the
council's insistence on its demolition would be a violation of Mr Duffy's rights under Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights.
Setting aside the Council's enforcement notice the inspector said in March: 'I recognise that by upholding the notice in its present form the appellant and his young family will be made
'Moreover, at the inquiry the council's planning officer made it clear that there was very little prospect of reasonable alternative accommodation being made available. In this situation it
seems to me there would be a violation of the appellant's human rights under article 8'.
However, in the high court last Thursday, Craig Howell Williams, counsel for the council, argued that in his reasoning when balancing Mr Duffy's right to respect for his home under Article 8
against the public interest and the need to protect the environment, the inspector failed to take into account the fact that Mr Duffy's home had been established unlawfully and that he
had carried out the development at his own risk.
Allowing the council's application to challenge the inspector's decision, Mr Justice Moses said that although he had 'great sympathy' for Mr Duffy, who was in court with his wife
Jackie, the apparent inadequacies in the Inspector's reasoning entitled the council to a judicial review.
STRAND NEWS SERVICE