A LAKE District car park that was set up without planning permission is set to be removed after an enforcement notice was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. 

Mr J Batty has been given three months to stop using the land at Low Grassings and Level Field, near Coniston, for this purpose and remove infrastructure such as pay and display machines and signage.

Other steps he must take include removing infill stone and spreading agricultural grass seed. 

The initial enforcement notice was served by the Lake District National Park Authority. 

Geoff Davies, chairman of the authority's development control committee, said the car park was 'unlawful and unacceptable'.

READ MORE: Proposed holiday park could have 'significant effects' on environment

"Our enforcement team work hard to ensure planning rules are followed and the special qualities of spectacular Lake District landscape are safeguarded from harmful unauthorised developments," he said. 

"We look forward to seeing the land restored.”

A Planning Inspectorate report says Mr Batty appealed on a number of grounds, among them that use of the car park in 2020 and 2021 did not, allegedly, exceed the 56-day period temporarily permissible without planning permission 'nor did it exceed 28 days in 2022 or will it in any subsequent years'.

The report refers, however, to a lack of evidence to support these claims and stresses the burden of proof was on the appellant.

"It is my understanding that a tally of vehicle numbers has been kept but that has not been submitted as evidence," says inspector A A Phillips in the report. 

READ MORE: Calls for tourism tax branded 'monstrous' by hotels boss

"Furthermore, the evidence before me is that the pay and display machines are too basic for records to be kept and the online payment system does not record days."

Mr Batty also suggested the steps required by the enforcement notice exceeded what was necessary to remedy the breach of planning control.

However, the inspectorate report says 'allowing any part of the development to continue' would not have been satisfactory to achieve this aim.

Mr Batty felt the three-month period provided to meet with the requirements of the enforcement notice was insufficient but the report says the 12-month compliance period proposed by the appellant would have been 'excessive' given 'the ongoing harm caused by the development in such a sensitive landscape setting'.

Mr Batty could not be reached for comment.