Couple Defy Authorities After Losing Planning Battle, Refuse to Tear Down Summer House

Four years ago, a couple constructed a £20,000 garden studio, but they declined to demolish it following a contentious planning dispute.

Last year, Catherine Curron and her companion Martin Keyes, who hail from Greenock in Scotland, were taken aback when local council planners denied them approval for an unauthorized two-meter extension they had built.

They challenged the ruling, however, after visiting the location, all members of the council’s Local Review Body supported the initial decision without objection.

This is due to its excessive size and 'adverse effect' on neighboring properties—even though no objections were filed.

The path is clear for Inverclyde Council to proceed with enforcement measures aimed at having the structure dismantled.

Mrs. Curran, who is 50 years old, expressed her anger—not only towards the decision itself but also how the information was conveyed to them.

She asserted firmly: "They are not demolishing it."

'I have discussed this with two additional council members, and alternative solutions are available.'

They won't let them tear down my summerhouse.

We received an invitation for the meeting, however, I had to work the night shift.

'The people across Inverclyde and Glasgow were aware that the appeal had been turned down even before we found out.'

'About two weeks back, I had eight council members visit my property. They were able to observe that we have invested significantly here.'

'I believe the council has managed this extremely poorly.'

Authorities stated that the shed adversely affected the neighboring property due to its dimensions and closeness to the dividing line between the homes.

Their decision report indicated: "The proposal does not appear to be acceptable regarding its size and proportions."

The proposal also adversely affects neighboring properties concerning physical impacts.

There were no objections raised when the couple's request for retroactive approval was sent to the council last year.

Council member Stephen McCabe stated during Wednesday’s gathering: "This issue seems complex, yet I believe we all recognize our link with the neighbor."

Clearly, nobody has raised any concerns; however, I do not believe that should prevent my involvement in making this decision.

Alderman Curley added, "I believe that statement holds true. Additionally, I think it's accurate to mention that we have implemented suitable precautions."

The choice was reached following visits from LRB members who went to examine the summer house at the property firsthand.

Councillor McCabe commented, "I was glad we conducted the site visit as it provided us with insights that would have been unattainable without it."

After examining the assigned officer's report and the rationale behind the rejection, I propose that we reject the appeal and sustain the initial ruling.

Ms. Curran mentioned that she had also presented a petition to the LRB containing 40 signatures backing the summer house idea.

'She went on, stating she had raised no concerns.'

'Everybody up here adores it.'

We informed the council that we were prepared to relocate it, but only as an absolute last option. Should we decide to shift it to the location of our other shed, which is fully insulated, we would require a crane.

We would need to rearrange our garden, take out the decking, and then have it concreted over.

'Why should we provide the council with the satisfaction they seek?'

Ms. Curran stated that she believes they have been treated unjustly since their summer home does not face onto anyone else’s land; however, another property extension located somewhere else in the same street does overlook a garden and has received approval for development.

She said: 'How was that approved? Our shed is at the back.

I'm upset. My partner isn’t pleased either. I’m doing my best to stay calm.

It hasn’t been fair. It has been around for four years, and I didn’t hear anything about it until July when they sent me a letter stating that I would face a fine.

Mayor McCabe's proposal to reject the appeal was approved unanimously with no objections raised.

Read more