Former Starbucks franchise owner must remove court and gym after planning appeal loss
Mark Hepburn, a businessman who formerly owned a company operating 110 Starbucks franchises, has lost an appeal over leisure facilities built on agricultural land behind his home in Durley, Hampshire. A planning inspector ruled there was insufficient evidence that the field had been used as a garden for the required period and said the development harmed the rural character of the area.
Hepburn has six months to remove the tennis and netball court, home gym and other structures, while a railway carriage may remain. He said the previous owners had used the land as an extensive garden and that his family kept alpacas there as pets. Neighbours argued the land had historically been used for horticulture and pasture.
In short
- Planning appeal over leisure facilities on agricultural land was rejected.
- A court and home gym must be removed within six months.
- A railway carriage is allowed to stay.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Hepburn’s case is that the facilities were added to land he understood had long formed part of the home’s garden, and that the family used it for domestic recreation and kept alpacas as pets. If that history and use were established, he could argue the structures reflect the property’s established character and that requiring their removal is a disproportionate response.
The case against
The planning inspector found insufficient evidence that the field had been used as a garden for the required period, while neighbours described its past use as horticultural and pastoral. On that account, the land should retain its rural character, and removing the facilities applies planning rules consistently and prevents development on agricultural land from being legitimised without adequate evidence.
Explained simply
Planning rules in England control what land can be used for and what can be built on it. A field next to a home does not automatically count as part of its garden; that can depend on how the land was used and the effect of any development on the surrounding area.
Mark Hepburn is a businessman who formerly owned a company running Starbucks franchises. The dispute concerns leisure facilities he built on agricultural land behind his home in Durley, Hampshire, and whether the land qualified as garden space.
The case matters because it shows how planning decisions can affect private land and buildings, even when an owner believes the land has long been used with a home. Neighbours and planning authorities can challenge that account, and an inspector weighs the evidence against planning rules.
Celebrity Entertainment Sport Tennis World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Starbucks millionaire ordered to dig up tennis court and home gym after his planning application is scuppered by wife’s herd of alpacas”.