whether he has succeeded in convincing the court that he did everything in his power to comply with a Planning Department enforcement notice.

The dispute centres on a property at Turtle Bay Lane, Southampton. Peniston was charged with failing to comply with the provisions set out in an enforcement notice requiring him to improve the surroundings of a swimming pool.

Between December 14, 1991 and March 24, 1992 the Crown charged Peniston did nothing to comply with the enforcement notice.

Peniston's lawyer, Mr. Arthur Hodgson, argued this week Peniston could not legally be declared the owner of the house because he was neither in possession of the property nor was he eligible to receive any money from it if it were rented.

Mr. Hodgson further argued that Government could have stepped in and done the required work itself.

"Government did not do this which supports our contention that this issue arises out of bureaucratic bungling and not my client's non compliance.

"The only point of bringing my client to court is to ensure compliance. By the time this was bought to court, the new owners had done all the work Planning required.

"My client did as much as he could do to secure compliance so he must be acquitted. He took all the steps he could have even to the point of selling the property.'' Crown Counsel Ms Sharon Kenny described Mr. Hodgson's argument that Peniston was not the owner of the property as "nifty'', but said she could see no reason why Peniston fell outside the scheme of the Planning Act.

"He is still entitled to rent from the property if it were rented,'' she said. "And how could he sell it if he was not the owner?'' "His story is not credible. The enforcement notice was served on October 17, 1991 and there were many letters which flowed between himself and the Planning Department. He just gave Planning the runaround, he was stalling for time.'' Ms Kenny also pointed out that although the property has now been made satisfactory after coming under a new owner, that fact had little bearing on the central issue which was that Peniston owned the property and failed to comply with the conditions set out in the enforcement notice.