Home   News   Article

Subscribe Now

Lawrences Lane development has been delayed after High Court hearing




DEVELOPMENT on the land at the end of Lawrences Lane in Thatcham is on hold as a court injunction remains in place after a further hearing this week.

A High Court hearing, held before Mr Justice Chamberlain, took place last Tuesday, August 31 and was adjourned.

This means that the prohibition order obtained by the Council will remain in place until a further hearing on September 27.

Lawrence Lane Development Thatcham (50263126)
Lawrence Lane Development Thatcham (50263126)

The prohibition order has required that the defendants may not undertake any further development on the land, as defined in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The defendants must not bring onto the land any additional caravans and/or mobile homes for residential occupation or any other purpose.

They must not take up permanent residential occupation of the touring caravans on the land, bring on any portable structures associated with residential occupation, or bring any further waste materials or hardcore in association with the use of land for the stationing of further caravans.

The developers have also been prohibited from carrying out any further works in relation to the formation of paths, roadways, and the provision of sewerage, water and electricity infrastructure.

Mr Justice Chamberlain has specified a timetable for the defendants to complete the submission of their case and, after that, for West Berkshire Council to provide any evidence that is necessary in response.

A large number of workmen were spotted taking in machinery to begin construction work without planning permission last month.

Neighbouring residents raised concerns to the police and local authorities over noise disturbances and anti-social behaviour from the on-site workers.

The site has previously undergone planning applications for a change of use from a self-service livery stable to a single dwelling and another to form a live/work unit. Both applications were rejected.



Comments | 0
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More