A MAN who transformed a hatched green around his home into a "residential area" has been ordered to change the land back to open land again.

Tim Spender, of Kingsfield in Ringwood, made the appeal against an enforcement notice issued by New Forest District Council that ordered him to remove a shed, patio, rabbit hutch and storage space.

The council also instructed him to demolish the hard-standing areas on the green, clear the resulting debris and re-seed or turf any areas adversely affected by the replacement work within two months.

The planning inspectorate upheld the enforcement notice with inspector noting: "A high brick wall previously separated the site from the appellant's rear garden but a large section of this wall has been demolished and in both visual and functional terms the appeal site now forms part of an extended garden area.

"Indeed it is currently occupied by a green coloured garden shed, a patio with a garden table and chairs, together with a rabbit hutch and rotary clotheslines. The presence of this domestic paraphernalia has bought about a change in the character of the land and in my opinion it is undoubtedly residential in use."

He said a breach of planning control had taken place and that, as a consequence, the appeal "must fail".

His report noted that Mr Spender had told him that he had carried out gardening and maintenance works to improve its aesthetic appearance.

He argued that there had been no material change in the use of land and that when his wife, Ann, had purchased the home the land was "derelict and overgrown".

But the inspector, Howard Russon, said he had "serious doubts" about the appellants' claim and he said he had heard that the grandchildren of a nearby resident had regularly previously played there and that the lawful use of the site should be as a "recreational/amenity" open space.

He said that aerial council photographs showed him that the boundary wall between the appellant's rear garden and the appeal site had been removed and that the land was being occupied by a vehicle and garden shed.

He said that, "in the balance of probability" the changes had been made in either 2002 or 2003 and said the site was not immune from being reinstated under the 10-year rule.

Mr Spender, who said he purchased the land in 1991 to use as a garden, said the decision was "bizarre and ridiculous" and that he was considering an appeal or applying for retrospective planning permission.

The father of two said he had maintained the land and now he could no longer keep the lawn mower he used to keep the area trim in a shed the inspector has told him to move.

"It was wasteland when I took it on. It's still my land, no one can use it if I don't want them to.

"It's supposed to be planning control, not planning prohibition. I just want to be able to use my land as my garden"