A COUPLE who were taken to court by the council for cutting down trees and erecting an ‘unauthorised building’ will not have to pay its £15,000 court fees, a court has ruled.

Wokingham Borough Council has failed in its attempt to extract costs from a couple over the tree works and unauthorised building at a woodland in Barkham.

The planning department of the council had taken Dean and Candice Jules to court over a potential breach of planning rules on land they own at The Coombes in Coombes Lane, Barkham.

The pair bought the 1.5 acre site to use as a place for forestry and charcoal creation in October 2018, and sought to clear rhododendron trees – a job that was quoted at over £15,000 for the work.

READ MORE: Residents gear up for fight to save Barkham farmland from development

Although the pair didn’t need to apply for permission to cut the trees down themselves, they did need to apply for a small woodland management plan which would allow them to cut the trees down for five to 10 years.

During the works, the pair also occupied a structure on the land, which they believed qualified as a caravan or mobile home in planning terms, and also applied to build a shed to store their tools.

However, the council received complaints that building materials were being delivered to the site, and raised concerns that the couple were building on the site without planning permission.

The council ordered the structure be pulled down and the decision was appealed by the Jules.. Although, an inspector ruled in September 2020 that it needed to be pulled down and so they did.

The family undertook the work despite a court injunction banning them from bringing and storing building materials to their land, and conducting any building works and tree works without permission.

The judge found that the couple had occupied the structure on the land unlawfully, built a shed, and cut down rhododendrons on the site without planning permission, supporting the council’s claim.

He then fined Dean and Candice Jules £100 each for breaking the rules.

READ MORE: Top councillor responds to campaign against bid for 270 homes on Barkham farmland

As part of the same case, the council bid to get the couple to pay its court costs of £15,781 but this was refused.

At a recent court hearing, Scott Stemp, representing the Jules family, said that they were unable to pay the costs because they are on benefit ‘dependent on Universal Credit for their income’.

Adding: “They were in council provided accommodation, but a decision was taken to demolish it, so they have moved into private rented accommodation.”

It was also said that the Jules family have agreed to pay the council £3,300 due to the costs involved in defending their unsuccessful appeal to keep the temporary building on the site.

During the hearing, Mr Justice Ritchie, the presiding judge, ruled that the council’s court costs will not be paid by the couple because it failed to engage in mediation that they had offered on two occassions, and because the couple had accepted fault.

It means that the council will now have to pay £15,781 for the legal costs of the prosecution.

Commenting on the case, he described it as “trench warfare” and urged the two sides to mediate the dispute.

Mr Justice Ritchie  said: “I don’t believe the public service is being carried out.

“The parties should consider mediation, as the underlying dispute is not being addressed. It’s crucial.”

So far, the Jules family have not obtained a small woodland management plan yet, and currently have tree by tree applications to cut the rhododendrons down.

Mr Justice Ritchie added Wokingham Borough Council has ‘refused to engage’ with the family “in their efforts to manage and enjoy their property.”

The council’s failed attempt to secure costs from the Jules family was heard at a High Court hearing on Wednesday, January 26.

The Jules family were fined £100 each at a prior hearing on Friday, November 12, 2021.

Both hearings were presided over by Mr Justice Ritchie.

READ MORE: Barkham farm solar panels plans approved

Responding to the decision, councillor Wayne Smith (Conservative, Hurst), the council's executive member for planning and enforcement said:  “The council won the planning enforcement appeal and were granted an injunction against Mr. Dean Jules and Mrs. Candice Jules.

"The Jules were found guilty of not complying with the court’s ruling.

"We have been successful in all the planning enforcement action we have taken against Mr & Mrs Jules, which we have done to protect the environment and the borough’s countryside.

“Whilst we have been successful in all our actions against Mr. & Mrs .Jules here, the judge in the latest hearing for committal proceedings fined Mr & Mrs. Jules but declined to award costs due to their financial situation.

"However, in previous court and planning appeal hearings the council has been awarded costs.

“Our planning enforcement team have a great record of success in protecting our towns, villages and countryside from unauthorised and inappropriate development and will continue to be proactive in their work.”