An animal trainer known as the ‘Horse Whisperer’ has been landed with a £3,600 legal bill following a nine-year feud with her local council in Cheshire.
Stephanie Dale, 40, was brought before the courts over her failure to pull down stables she illegally built on greenbelt land.
The mother-of-three, from the market town of Congleton, repeatedly ignored the council’s demands to demolish the stable block, which was erected without planning permission.
JPs heard the dispute dated back to 2016, when Dale was issued with two enforcement notices from Cheshire East council instructing her to take down the stables and remove its concrete base, as well as remove a caravan and associated utilities on land off Watery Lane in the Astbury area of town.
It emerged she had been allowed to build one stable block, but she added a second without permission.
Dale, who has worked with horses since the age of 20 and is known for training ‘problem’ animals, unsuccessfully appealed and in 2018 was fined £1,000 for breaching the two enforcement orders.
She moved the caravan the following year, but she did not demolish the stables and was charged again, following further investigations last year.
At Crewe Magistrates Court she was found guilty of breaching an enforcement order in her absence and was fined a further £1,100, with costs of £2528.22.
The court heard she had provided a sick note saying she was suffering anxiety and depression and also had an orthopaedic appointment at hospital at the time the trial was due to take place, but JPs ruled the case should proceed without her.
She was unavailable for comment when later approached at her home.
The court heard Dale was joint owner of the land with a man called Mr Foster, but that she was the ‘driving force’ behind the development.
Prosecuting for the council, Mr Khalid Mahmood said: ‘Notices were served in December 2016 and and an appeal was lodged with the Secretary of State by Stephanie Dale.
‘In the case of the first notice, the appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice was upheld, whilst the second notice was complied with. The caravan was removed on or around September 26, 2022.
‘Despite reminders, the defendant has failed to comply with the first notice and no word or explanation has been provided. There has been a disregard for a considerable period of time.’
Senior planning officer Zafer Faqir told the hearing: ‘Planning permission was granted for keeping horses and stables would be part and parcel of that, keeping them away from the elements.
‘But It was the additional stables that was problematic, because of the impact of the unauthorized stables on the green belt itself.
‘The land subject to enforcement notice is designated as green belt and in plain English, the type of development allowed is very restricted compared to towns or something like that.
‘The notice was served because of a breach of planning control as there was an unauthorized erection of a stables block and a block concrete pad.
‘The defendant was required to demolish the stables block and to break up and remove the concrete base of the stables and remove all the materials.
‘The other notice served was in relation to a stationary residential caravan, hardstanding and the installation of utilities.
‘Miss Dale has subsequent appeals against both notices and both dismissed.
The second notice was complied with after the appeal, but the other – which relates to the stables block – has not been complied with.
‘I had visited the site to see the notice has been complied with. I could see that the notice had not been complied with.
‘On January 25, 2024, I wrote to the defendant by email to bring to her attention that the notice had still not been complied with and needed to be complied with. l did a follow-up visit as well in February 2024. One of the stable blocks is still standing.’
He added: ‘Development does not work on a punitive basis. Where we consider it expedient to take action is where harm has been caused.
‘That determines whether or not we are likely to take action. In a case like this, officers would have determined as part of the enforcement notice whether permission could be granted with conditions attached.
‘Conditions can be used to make developments acceptable, but where conditions could not override the harm we naturally move to refuse them.
‘The planning inspector would have listened to arguments from both parties and come to his own conclusion as to whether planning permission should have been granted.
‘As far as I am aware, she is the one who has had all the active involvement. She has been the driving force with the development on site.’