A homeowner has left councillors scratching their heads after outright refusing to submit any kind of planning application for a couple of sheds and a fence he has erected on his property.
The structures, in Busby, Glasgow, were all said to be in keeping with the area during a local council debate on the matter but, despite repeat requests from the council, the owner continues to refuse to put in retrospectiveplanning permission, leaving the council with no choice but to consider enforcement action out of principle.
We explore why the sheds and fence needed planning permissions as well as how the councillors have responded to the unusual case and their concerns of a planning "free for all".
Why did the shed need planning permission?
The homeowner put up two timber outbuildings, described by council officials as a "shed or a building to house a hot tub".
He also installed a two metre high fence, but none of this was completed with planning permission, even though规划许可了is needed if the shed covers more than 50% of the land around house, which in this case they did.
Plans for the shed were initially submitted in March, but then withdrawn the following day with officials saying this was because the landowner said they didn't think they should need planning permission.
Planning permission for fencesis also required when the fence is is installed over a certain height.
Concerns case could lead to planning 'free for all'
In June, East Renfrewshire Council issued a formal notice for the owner to submit aretrospective planningapplication, but this was ignored.
Planning officers then told councillors that failure to submit the application shouldnotautomatically require the planning service to pursue enforcement action, stating: “[it] does not mean the planning service is required to serve an enforcement notice to seek removal of the structures.”
This was in part due to planners deciding that the buildings would not be "out of character" with the residential use of the site and would not significantly contribute to noise and disturbance. They also deemed the development to be acceptable in terms of appearance.
However, this left councillors fearing the case could lead to a planning "free for all" in the area if no action was taken against the homeowner for ignoring the requests for a planning application.
Councillors left bewildered about what to do next
Despite the recommendation from planning officials to take no further action against the resident, the council rejected it, citing complaints from neighbours and potential consequences for future planning applications.
Councillor Annette Ireland expressed her belief in the planners assessment that the development does negatively affect the public amenity in neighbouring properties and stated “I have never known anyone refuse to put in a planning application and say they just don’t think they should".
Councillor Paul Edlin commented on the homeowner's disregard for regulations and argued against allowing the buildings to remain as they are, fearing it could lead to a "free-for-all" with other residents bypassing planning permission.
Councillor Andrew Morrison, while having some sympathy for the planning officers' recommendation, moved that it not be accepted, as he stated: “The council is facing tight budgets, you are tight in terms of manpower, but I actually think the elected members would be doing you a disservice by going for that.
“I think we’d be giving you vastly more work in future years because, as Councillor Edlin said, it gives a green light to other people to consider planning as an optional extra, rather than a legal requirement which people should comply with.”
