A Milford Haven man who fitted wheels to his garden shed in a bid to outwit planning officers, has lost his legal battle.

James Kershaw of Pill Priory, Lower Priory, tried to claim that, by adding the wheels, the shed was no longer a building and therefore not subject to planning regulations.

On Friday he was convicted of not complying with an Enforcement Notice issued by Pembrokeshire County Council and fined £700.

Delivering his reserved verdict at Llanelli Magistrates Court, District Judge Chris James found for the Council on all arguments, including that the defendant had added the wheels after the Enforcement Notice’s compliance period.

He added he was also satisfied that it remained a building.

Judge James said he did not believe the argument advanced on behalf of Kershaw that the shed was intended to be moved around the yard nor that it would be possible to actually do so.

He further found that the Enforcement Notice was valid with the defendant clearly understanding what he was required to do and that the addition of the wheels was an attempt to evade planning authority control.

Judge James was delivering his judgement following an earlier hearing at Haverfordwest Magistrates Court.

It was stated then that in 2015 Kershaw had erected the wooden shed on his land at Pill Priory without planning permission.

The County Council served Kershaw with an Enforcement Notice requiring the shed to be demolished on the basis of harm to the adjacent Priory ruins – a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade 2 Listed Building.

Subsequently, the court heard, Kershaw appealed but this was dismissed by a planning inspector and the Notice upheld.

Following a period of non-compliance, the County Council instigated legal proceedings and Kershaw later denied one offence of failure to comply with the Notice.

At the Haverfordwest trial, Kershaw produced pictures of the shed showing that wheels had been added and that therefore it was no longer a building but a chattel placed on land.

The trial was then adjourned for skeleton arguments to be filed.

The skeleton argument filed on behalf of the defendant alleged that:

• the wheels had been added prior to the period of the charge – therefore before February 2018

• compliance with the Enforcement Notice (which refers to a building) was impossible as, by February 2018, the shed had already ceased to be a building but was now a chattel placed on land

• the Enforcement Notice was a nullity as it referred to a building

• alternatively that by converting the shed from being a building the defendant had done all he could to comply with the Notice.

The County Council claimed that Kershaw had not added the wheels to the shed until after the charge period.

The Authority also contended that in any event the Town and Country Planning Act prohibited the defendant from raising as a defence in criminal proceedings something that he could have (and did) raise by way of appeal and, despite the alterations, the shed as a matter of fact and degree, remained a building.

In mitigation for the defendant, barrister Matthew Graham Paul said that his client had made a deliberate decision to test the legal position; that his actions were not for personal gain and that most people were entitled to a garden shed – he needed it to store his business tools.

Delivering his judgement, Judge James said that there was an element of deliberate defiance by the defendant for his own benefit.

The Judge referred to the words of the planning inspector who called the shed a “clumsy and monolithic addition” and a significant visual intrusion which failed to preserve the setting of the Listed building.

However, Judge James said he considered the harm caused could be rectified and noted that the defendant had no previous record of failing to comply with planning law.

Kershaw was also ordered to pay a £70 victim’s surcharge and costs of £2,244.04 were awarded to Pembrokeshire County Council.