The Featherstone appeal has overturned an enforcement notice against a storage yard beside Featherstone Rovers’ ground in West Yorkshire. Inspector Grahame J. Kean issued the decision on 12th October 2026, finding that Wakefield Council was too late to enforce against the storage use and granting separate permission for the site’s two-metre fencing, subject to landscaping.
The land north of Post Office Road was formerly used for sports pitches. The council’s notice required the storage and highway maintenance depot use to stop, the fencing to go, and containers, caravans, trailers and other stored items to be removed. The Inspector’s decision removes those requirements, but the fence permission carries a condition that still needs careful attention.
I would separate the two parts of this result. Evidence of a long-established use can make it immune from enforcement, while more recent building work on the same land still needs its own planning assessment. That distinction mattered here: the storage use succeeded on its history, and the fencing succeeded on its merits with a condition.
Why the Featherstone appeal turned on two separate breaches
The Featherstone appeal, reference APP/X4725/C/25/3370603, concerned an enforcement notice issued on 27th July 2025. Mr Mark Campbell of Featherstone Rovers Storage challenged allegations covering both the change from sport to storage and the erection of palisade and anti-climb fencing.
One appeal ground argued that the time limit for taking enforcement action had passed. Another sought planning permission through the appeal itself. Those routes ask different questions: whether the council can still enforce against the alleged breach, and whether permission should be granted for it.
For the storage use, the Inspector applied a ten-year period. The relevant question was whether that use had continued without material interruption for at least ten years before the notice was issued. The critical date was therefore 27th July 2015, rather than the date of the appeal decision.
This is why I would start with a reliable chronology when reviewing an enforcement notice. A photograph showing something on one date is useful, but the case needs evidence of the actual use and its continuity. The decision turned on the combined account of aerial imagery, construction history and what had happened across the land.
How the storage history was assessed
The Featherstone appeal examined Google Earth images showing a marked change between 2009 and 2013. The council did not dispute that the May 2013 image showed storage. Its position was that the present storage and highways depot use began after June 2016, following an earlier temporary construction compound.
That earlier compound related to new stands and an enlarged rugby pitch on adjoining land. Temporary construction facilities can fall within permitted development rights, with requirements to remove them and reinstate the land when the relevant works have finished. The council’s argument depended on the relationship between that temporary use and the later commercial storage.
Building control records were part of the dispute. The Inspector identified an application commencement date of 11th April 2013 and regarded this as persuasive evidence that physical construction began around then. A recorded completion date in September 2015 did not settle when the works had actually finished.
The appellant said the stands were completed in February 2015. The decision also refers to a BBC report from that month announcing their unveiling. The Inspector accepted that physical completion and the later issue of a building control completion certificate need not be the same event.
He considered it likely that general storage began shortly after physical completion, and in any event before 27th July 2015. His assessment was on the balance of probabilities: whether the evidence made that account more likely than not. It was not a finding based solely on the date a council first received a complaint.
Ending a temporary use did not automatically restart the clock
The Featherstone appeal also considered what would happen if temporary construction storage and commercial storage had overlapped. The Inspector rejected an automatic assumption that the end of one component necessarily restarted the enforcement clock for the other.
He referred to the earlier Philglow court case when assessing this point. The question was whether moving from the combined activities to commercial storage alone changed the character of the use of the land as a whole. On the evidence here, he did not consider that it had.
The decision treats the appeal site as one planning unit, meaning the land assessed as a whole for its use. Commercial storage was its dominant character. The evidence did not persuasively show that the temporary construction use had displaced it, or that storage had stopped for a material period.
The Inspector concluded that it was too late to take enforcement action
against the use. That finding removed the change-of-use allegation and the associated requirements from the notice. It did not grant a new planning permission for the storage use; it established the successful time-limit ground in this enforcement appeal.
Why the fence still needed planning permission
The Featherstone appeal did not find that the fencing enjoyed the same protection. The parties agreed that the high galvanised and anti-climb fencing was not outside the relevant enforcement period. The Inspector therefore went on to consider whether permission should be granted for those works.
Wakefield objected to the fencing’s appearance and its contribution to clutter and harm to local amenity. The Inspector assessed the fence separately from the storage use, which had already succeeded on the time-limit ground. He found that the fencing did not affect residential properties at the other end of the site.
Security also carried weight. The Inspector regarded secure storage as significant to commercial viability. Similar fencing at the nearby stadium provided context for the appearance of the appeal fence, although it did not amount to a compelling precedent that settled the case.
He gave no weight to the suggestion that the fence prevented public access across the land because no supporting evidence of public rights of way across it had been provided. A public footpath along the eastern side was a different matter: views from that path remained relevant to how the fencing affected the area.
Vegetation already broke up parts of the metal boundary. The Inspector considered that landscaping focused on the fencing could address its appearance. With a suitable condition, he found compliance with the relevant Wakefield Local Plan policies on landscape impact, design and landscape design.
The landscaping condition can require the fencing to go
The Featherstone appeal grants retrospective permission for the two-metre palisade and anti-climb fence. Its condition requires a landscaping scheme to be submitted for written approval within one month of the decision, with a timetable for implementation. The scheme must focus on areas beside the permitted fencing.
The condition also sets out an appeal route if the council refuses approval or fails to decide within the prescribed period. Within eleven months of the decision, any required appeal must have been made and accepted as valid. An appeal must then be finally determined with the scheme approved, and the approved planting must be completed to its timetable and maintained.
Failure to meet any of the specified requirements triggers removal of the fencing within 30 days. The condition provides for suspension of its time limits during a legal challenge. I would read the exact wording before calculating deadlines or commissioning works: the permission is conditional, and securing a decision is not the end of the process.
What the decision means in practice
The full official decision, condition and plan should be read together. The Inspector corrected the notice to remove the use allegation and replace its plan, then quashed the corrected notice and granted permission for the fencing. The separate ground seeking more time to comply consequently fell away.
For anyone facing similar action, the practical lesson is to identify each alleged breach and test its evidence separately. Our planning enforcement guide and appeals guide explain the wider routes. This is an English Inspector’s decision, not a court judgment or a guarantee that another storage yard will obtain the same outcome.
0 Comments