Wealthy businessman battles council over 10-year land use claim for outbuildings and tennis court

A wealthy businessman may be forced to demolish two outbuildings and a tennis court after a council rejected his 10-year planning exemption claim.

Mark Hepburn, 52, a Starbucks franchise owner, argued the land he built on qualified for permitted development rights after 10 years of continuous residential usage, meaning planning permission was not required.

However, Winchester City Council rejected this application after claiming the 10-year claim was "less than probable."

What was built?

Hepburn constructed two outbuildings that included a gym, as well as a tennis court on the land behind his property and a play area with a large toy castle.

These were built on three-acres of agricultural land, which remains subject to strict planning controls.

Hepburn’s 10-year claim for lawful development

Hepburn sought a Lawful Development Certificate on the basis that the land had been used as part of the residential property for over a decade.

In his appeal, he argued that the land in question had been used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of Cupressus for at least ten years, thus making it eligible for permitted development rights.

In a letter, Hepburn stated: "All of the land has been used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of Cupressus for in excess of 10 years."

Council find 10-year claim 'less than probable'

Winchester City Council argued that the evidence presented by Hepburn was inadequate to establish a continuous ten-year residential use of the land.

The council noted that while Hepburn had owned the property since 2017, this only accounted for approximately five and a half years of use, falling short of the required decade.

In its decision, the council cited government planning guidance, which states that an application must describe precisely what is being applied for and provide sufficient evidence. The council maintained that Hepburn’s evidence did not satisfy these requirements and that other records contradicted his claims.

"The Local Planning Authority maintains that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the use of the land has been as an extended garden for the requisite 10-year period," the council stated.

The authority also highlighted that there was evidence that contradicted Hepburn’s claim, making his version of events "less than probable."

Man appeals against decision

Unwilling to back down, Hepburn has decided to appeal the council’s refusal, arguing that their decision was made in error.

His case will now go before a planning inspector, who will review both sides’ arguments and determine whether the council's decision should be overturned.

For now, the fate of the outbuildings and tennis court remains uncertain, as the appeal process could either validate Hepburn’s claims or force the removal of the structures. If the appeal fails, Hepburn may be required to restore the land to its original agricultural state, further escalating the dispute.

As the case unfolds, it highlights the challenges faced by homeowners seeking to expand their properties without explicit planning permission, as well as the strict regulatory environment governing land use in rural areas.