Victorian gatehouse owner appeals council's Enforcement Notice to remove pergolas and fencing

Max Paul Telero is challenging the order by Bolsover District Council that the structures on land at South Lodge, Park Street, Barlborough be taken down. The appellant is also seeking an award of full costs which he has incurred in fighting the enforcement notice, citing unreasonable behaviour by the council.

A statement by Lloyd Jones of LRJ Planning, prepared on behalf of the appellant, said that prior to the works, the rear of the site was in a state of significant disrepair with boundary treatments in poor condition which exposed the site to repeated thefts, trespass, and disturbances from passers-by. The rear garden boundary was originally composed of wire netting and ruined wooden fencing. To protect the property and owner’s privacy, a new fence was installed, complemented by planted hedges.

The appellant installed two freestanding pergolas, one of which is a temporary structure constructed from the same weathered stone as approved extensions and is entirely hidden from public view. The second is located in front of permitted French doors and is designed to provide shade.

On July 12, 2024, it was brought to the attention of the council’s planning authority that two pergola structures had been erected within the grounds of Park Street. A site visit by officers on August 16 found that pergolas incorporating Corinthian columns had been erected in the rear garden, one abutting a freestanding garage building and one immediately to the rear of South Lodge.

The council served the enforcement notice on the grounds that: *The pergolas’ siting, scale and appearance jar with the architecture and harm the setting;

*The timber fencing comprising vertically laid boards, sited behind the post and rail fencing along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, results in an abrupt and incongruous means of enclosure that undermines the openness and historic association of the site with Barlborough Hall (Grade I listed), resulting in harm to the setting of both designated heritage assets and the designated historic park and garden (Grade II listed);

*The planning breach appeared to have occurred within the last 10 years.

The notice stated: “Given the land comprise the curtilage of a listed building, there are no permitted development rights or means of enclosure and the development does not benefit from planning permission or enforcement immunity. The development is considered to be unlawful.”

A separate report from Lloyd Jones highlights the appellant’s reasons for applying for a full award of costs from the council and claims:

*Despite repeated requests, the council failed to articulate what would be deemed to an acceptable solution;

*Over the past 12 months, the council has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements expected of a public authority including timely and effective communication;

*The appellant has attempted to resolve matters amicably through dialogue, yet the council has demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussions or provide reasonable alternatives before proceeding with enforcement action;

*The council’s handling of the matter has failed to meet its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out in the Equality Act 2010. The appellant has been directly affected by the council’s failure to take into account relevant disability considerations when assessing the case.

Mr Jones’ report stated: “As a result of the above failures, the enforcement notice issued by the council is fundamentally unsound. Had the council acted reasonably, it is likely that the enforcement action could have been avoided entirely or resolved through negotiation rather than appeal. The council’s actions have placed an unnecessary financial burden on the appellant, forcing them to engage in an appeal process that should not have been necessary.”

The enforcement notice was issued on February 24, 2025 with a three-month deadline to remove the pergola and fencing.