The condition allowed the conservatory to remain in place until June 2010 or when the building ceased to be used as a restaurant, but it did not specify any period for requiring removal after that date. The reporter noted that the structure had a long lifetime and agreed that its removal would have a major impact on the business's finances.
The terms of the condition were so onerous as to be unreasonable, he judged. He saw no indication that a trial run was required to assess the development's acceptability. He also accepted that no alternative accommodation could be provided on the appeal site to meet the identified need. The council had acted unreasonably in imposing the condition and a full award of costs to the appellants was merited, he decided.
Reporter: William Maslin; Inquiry.