A Bucks business has lost a battle to keep cars stored in the grounds of a historic pub after a government planning inspector dismissed an appeal.

Sadar Hussain, of Langdon Realty Limited, had appealed against an enforcement notice issued by Buckinghamshire Council in 2024.

The notice ordered him to stop using the grounds of The George Inn to sell and store cars, to remove all vehicles, machinery, tools and equipment from the site, and to break up areas of hardstanding identified by the council.

The authority said the works had taken place without planning permission and that it did not consider permission should be granted. Mr Hussain was given six months to remedy the breach of planning control.

Instead, he appealed the notice, and argued the notice was ‘premature’, saying related planning appeals were ongoing and that the site required a ‘sustainable’ economic model.

In his appeal statement, it said: “The new owners sought assistance of the Council to chart a way forward for the site and the building.

“The assistance was slow and tortuously bureaucratic. In its refusal the Council argues that it is a community asset of significant importance, but in the early days the Council did not show that appreciation when much urgency and leadership was needed.

“The Council argues that the proposed car sales showroom is not compatible with the character and amenities of the local area.

“An inspection will show that the area bears none of the characteristics it may have once had.

The area around the site is one of haphazard, mixed development, van hire and storage business, a not so attractive, hand car wash, awkward driveways, an unattractive pedestrian bridge, ill-defined driveways, low maintained road and pavements all contributing to an area neglected by the authorities over many years.

“It is indeed true that residents have reported increased traƯic congestion and parking problems in the area since the current owners have moved onto the site. It is also true that in recent months, these issues have all resolved.”

However, the council argued there was insufficient evidence to support Mr Hussain’s appeal and said the enforcement notice was necessary to remedy the breach of planning control.

In his decision, Inspector Gareth Symons said: “The appellant’s statement covers matters such as planning merits, engagement with the Council and the background of the other two appeals. Its content is not directed at showing why it is considered that the steps required by the notice, or the activities it aims to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach of planning control under an appeal.

“I conclude that the appeal should fail. I shall uphold the enforcement notice.”