A house owner has been left livid after councillors ordered her to tear down a fence she says was defending her household from litter, canine fowling and drunk intruders.
Daybreak Gardner erected the 1.8m picket fence beside her property in Livingston after repeated points with public misuse of the land she owns.
However regardless of proudly owning the plot and receiving no objections from close by neighbours, planning permission was rejected because of the fence’s visible affect.
Fence put in for safety and hygiene
Daybreak Gardner erected a 1.8-metre picket fence alongside the north-west boundary of her property. The fence was supposed to cease ongoing canine fouling, littering and folks utilizing her backyard as a shortcut.
The fence was designed to mix with the world – stepping right down to 1.15m close to a roundabout and customer parking – and was positioned away from the footpath to make sure no visibility or issues of safety.
Planning officers confirmed that the fencing had no opposed affect on neighbours and prompted no street security considerations.
A planning report acknowledged: “There aren’t any implications when it comes to entry to gentle, overshadowing, bodily affect or privateness… Timber fencing is a typical boundary remedy within the space.”
Convey your dream dwelling to life with knowledgeable recommendation, the way to guides and design inspiration. Join our publication and get two free tickets to a Homebuilding & Renovating Present close to you.
Why did the council reject the appliance?
Regardless of these findings, West Lothian Council’s Improvement Administration Committee (DMC) refused planning permission for the fence, arguing that it harmed the “visible amenity” of the world.
Mrs Gardner had partially received an attraction to the Scottish Authorities final 12 months, which accepted the land was hers and required her to submit a retrospective utility.
Councillors rejected planning permission for the fence whereas granting permission for a storage additionally included within the utility. Some councillors criticised the fence’s look, with Councillor George Paul calling the end “poor” and Councillor Pauline Stafford saying the peak “detracts from the streetscape”.
The native Eliburn Group Council additionally objected, saying the fence encroached on open area that needs to be preserved. Parish Councillor Stephen Egan claimed: “It breaches quite a few insurance policies… this land was supposed to stay as amenity landscaping.”
‘They ignored all the pieces we stated’
Mrs Gardner stated she felt blindsided by the choice and accused councillors of ignoring each her considerations and the Scottish Authorities’s earlier ruling.
“From all that West Lothian Council requested us to do and what they did in return – it’s an enormous letdown,” she stated. “They took no discover of what the ministers stated. There was no person there to characterize us, so our voices weren’t heard.”
She stated the fence was put up after she and her husband, Sacha, endured repeated delinquent behaviour. She stated: “Individuals have been urinating in opposition to our backyard wall. I used to be selecting up canine mess every day. What number of councillors would really like that at their again door?”
She additionally identified that related fences exist elsewhere on the property and that her neighbours supported the set up.
Gardner added: “I’ve not carried out something fallacious. If that they had walked across the property, they’d have seen fences identical to this.”
Mrs Gardner plans to attraction the council’s determination once more, saying: “It was dismissed in six minutes. That isn’t a sound cause. They’re extra anxious concerning the color of the fence than our security.”
