Four static caravans have left a pub owner at loggerheads with the Broads Authority.

Eastern Daily Press: The still water of the River Yare in the evening at the Beauchamp Arms at Buckenham. Picture: Denise BradleyThe still water of the River Yare in the evening at the Beauchamp Arms at Buckenham. Picture: Denise Bradley

The authority is looking to take action against Ray Hollocks, who owns the Beuachamp Arms pub in Claxton, demanding he remove the vans from land he owns.

The vans are being stored along the boundary of the pub's car park, on the banks of the River Yare.

However, the Broads Authority says Mr Hollocks does not have planning permission to store the statics, and therefore they must be removed.

The pub owner, though, insisted he was within his rights, claiming the car park's history as a caravan site meant he should not be subject to new permission.

He said: 'We were looking to have the statics and our letting rooms targeted on people wishing to use the facilities associated with the river - sailing, fishing, walking, bird watching and so on.

'As the definition of a National Park is for people to enjoy these pleasures, every support should be given by the BA to encourage the facilities and allow this to happen. Instead, it appears every effort is being made to obstruct alternative uses to make the pub viable.'

At a meeting of the BA's planning committee this week, members will decide whether to go ahead with enforcement, which could land Mr Hollocks in court if he does not comply.

Mr Hollocks asked to speak at the meeting, but his request was rejected.

A spokesman for the BA said it was 'normal practice' when considering enforcement action for members of public not to be invited to speak.

A statement from a BA spokesman said: 'Although static caravans have been on site before, they did not have relevant planning permission and were removed in 2011.

'Mr Hollocks contacted the BA about his intention to purchase more statics for the site in 2018, claiming he already had planning permission. He was advised he did not and should not bring them on site.

'The site is unsuitable for additional habitable accommodation because it is within a functional flood zone where only water compatible uses would be acceptable.'