Campsite owner who spent £35,000 on lawyers during five-year planning row battle with ‘bullying’ council over toilet block and showers receives just £26 in costs after it dropped court case

A campsite owner has accused a council of ‘bullying’ him after a five-year legal battle over his business left him £130,000 out of pocket – while he was awarded just £26 in costs.

Nigel Marsh’s battle began over an enforcement notice he was issued with over ‘infrastructure’ he installed for visitors, including a toilet block and showers.

He insisted they were allowed under permitted development, while King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council claimed they breached rules.

But during a pre-trial review at Norwich Crown Court, he learned the council would not be presenting evidence and were dropping the case.

As the case had not been heard, he was unable to claim legal costs of £35,000 he would have sought for an acquittal and instead was only awarded costs for his travel expenses on the day.

Nigel Marsh has accused a council of ‘bullying’ him after a five-year legal battle over infrastructure he had installed left him £130,000 out of pocket

A separate dispute with the council over a second site that has not been allowed to open has cost him another £19,500 in legal fees for both sides – which he paid – plus an estimated £75,000 in lost income over two years.

The former publican told MailOnline: ‘I’m being bullied by the council. They only have their view, they don’t listen. They don’t understand the facts and they don’t ask for meetings to discuss issues. Their way is the only way.’

Mr Marsh, 58, and his wife Carol opened Hunstanton Camping and Glamping in 2017 on a former agricultural field in Heacham that had buildings with planning consent for holiday lets.

He was allowed to open up the site to campers and caravaners under Caravan Club certification and the council confirmed it had no objection at the time, he said.

The trouble began the following year after he installed a toilet block in one of the buildings and added mobile shower units.

The council issued an enforcement notice claiming it was an unauthorised permanent campsite – leading to the legal tussle that ended up at King’s Lynn Magistrates Court before Mr Marsh, who has three children from a previous relationship while his wife has five children, decided to exercise his right for a breach hearing to take place in front of a jury at Norwich Crown Court.

It was during a second preliminary hearing last month that he learned the council would not be presenting any evidence and the case was abandoned.

The legal battle with King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council began over an enforcement notice he was issued for toilet block and mobile showers units installed in the Hunstanton Camping and Glamping site in Heacham

The 58-year-old and his wife Carol opened Hunstanton Camping and Glamping in 2017 on a former agricultural field that had buildings with planning consent for holiday lets

But the fact the evidence had not been heard and a verdict reached meant he was not able to claim back his legal costs, which included hours of legal advice and representation in court by a barrister. Instead, he was only awarded costs for his travel on the day.

The second site in Burnham Norton was purchased in 2021 and was allowed to operate under a planning consent exemption from Natural England. Mr Marsh said his barrister arranged for the organisation to confirm the land’s status to the council.

But the matter ended up in the High Court as the council claimed the business would have a significant effect on the area. Such objections can include overcrowding or substandard sanitary facilities.

An injunction was issued, which Mr Marsh was unwilling to counter. He had to reimburse customers who had paid deposits or full fees and the land has remained unused ever since, costing him an estimated £75,000 in lost income.

He also had to pay £12,000 to the council to cover its legal fees, while his outlay on the case was £7,500.

‘The council said its position is that ‘Mr Marsh remains in breach of planning control and is considering further action’.

It added: ‘The judgement was a procedural judgement only. The judge did not consider the merits of the council’s case, as it had already withdrawn the application to take alternative action.

‘The £26 costs awarded to Mr Marsh following the discontinuance is for his mileage to court and is in the process of being paid.’

Source: Read Full Article