Pensioner's £10k bill for breaching council enforcement action

The hefty financial hit for Peter Harry Dick comes less than two years after an earlier prosecution saw him receive a £6,100 bill.

BCP Council took Dick to court again after he failed to comply with an enforcement notice issued following the previous conviction in relation to his £500,000 property in Barrack Road, West Parley.

Dick has been in a planning dispute with the local authority for more than a decade, with multiple planning applications rejected and appeals dimissed.

The 74-year-old was on trial at Poole Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, May 2, having previously pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaching an enforcement notice.

However, he changed his plea after the council’s legal representative closed the prosecution case.

Peter Harry Dick leaving Poole Magistrates' Court (Image: BNPS)

Chairman of the bench David Murray said: “Mr Dick, you have taken a course of action that has put you on a collision course with the council and planning rules.”

Mary Almeida, representing BCP Council, said there was a “long history” to the case, with the enforcement notice first issued by Christchurch Borough Council in 2012.

She said the council had given the defendant from August 11, 2021, until November 27, 2021, to demolish the unauthorised brick-built property.

“It is the council case that Mr Dick is still in breach of the notice, and he has not raised any valid defence to these proceedings,” Ms Almeida said.

She read a lengthy statement from planning enforcement officer Neil Smith which detailed the actions the council had taken since 2019.

Simon Bell, representing the defendant, made an application for the case to be dismissed after the prosecution concluded its evidence.

He told magistrates that the council had failed to prove in its case that his client was the owner of the land at the time of the alleged enforcement notice breach.

Mr Bell said the procedural matter he was raising concerned an “essential element” which was required for there to be a conviction.

He said the bench could not reasonably convict the defendant at the end of the trial.

The court heard in the prosecution’s evidence bundle there was a copy of the Land Registry entry for the site dated 2019 – two years before the alleged offence – to show Dick was the site owner.

The unlawful property (Image: BNPS)

The bench rejected Mr Bell’s application and adjourned the case for a short period to allow Ms Almeida to source an up-to-date Land Registry record.

Magistrate Mr Murray told Mr Bell: “What you have effectively done is you have ambushed the prosecution.”

When the hearing resumed, Ms Almeida said a Land Registry record with the hearing’s date showed Dick was the owner of the site and he had been since 1993.

At this point, the defendant changed his plea to guilty.

Mr Bell told the court it was not his intention to “ambush” the prosecution and the issue he raised had only come to his attention on the morning of the trial.

In mitigation, Mr Bell asked his client about his personal circumstances and situation with the property.

Dick told the court his wife has muscular dystrophy which was getting progressively worse.

He said the layout of the house was done specifically for her to move around after the neighbouring metal structure, which was allowed under permitted development, was no longer suitable for her to live in.

“To convert the industrial shed so she could move about was just unviable,” the defendant said.

Poole Magistrates' Court

The court heard Dick had £120,000 set aside for his wife’s care.

Mr Bell said the planning regime “does not perhaps work as well as it should” in cases like that of his client.

He said the conviction did not mean the defendant had to take the house down straightaway and he hoped the council would not use the toughest powers available to it.

The defendant was ordered to pay a £7,500 fine, £3,269 prosecution costs and a £190 surcharge.