13 The defendant gave evidence. He said that Mr Jauncey inspected the property on 1 February 2006 for works that did not have development consent. Subsequently, Mr Jauncey left some paperwork (which I infer to be the undertakings), but the defendant did not receive that paperwork immediately as it was left under the door of the dwelling. The defendant was working on the outside and did not often go into the dwelling. During "that time" (which I infer to be from 2 February 2006 until the undertakings were signed on 10 or possibly 16 February 2006), the defendant said he "cleaned up" whatever he could. He constructed a couple of roofs over expensive equipment, such as the pool pump, and carried out some further work until he "took the undertaking to stop work". He pleaded guilty to the first Court attendance notice (heard in May 2006) and went back to the property in June 2006. They had a lot of complaints from neighbours and "fenced off a few fences" where neighbours had pets, tiled the showers and painted some concrete render to stop it falling off and did "some patch ups", but he did not think he had done any works that needed development consent. He agreed that the shower cubicles, as at 1 February 2006, were just wooden frames. As at 25 July 2006, the shower cubicles had been plaster boarded and tiled. He agreed that he had also enclosed three structures, including the shower and sauna areas. He described the works that he carried out between 1 and 16 February 2006 in the following evidence:
Q. That was the date you say you received it. So, what works exactly do you say were carried out between the conversation with Mr Jauncy on 1 February and 16 February?
A. The roof structure over the pool pump. The roof structure over the sauna, the roof structure over the front little outbuilding, that measured 2 metres by 3 metres. We completed a couple of columns, two columns I think of masonry and we did do a couple of just - no I think it was just a couple of columns, there was no extra columns.