City Council could be made to pay for planning appeal

ACults man fighting to keep his shed claims councillors were “clearly confused” when he was ordered to move it or lose it – and wants to make Aberdeen City Council pay.

Neighbours complained Stuart Spearritt’s “garden bar” was more “Blackpool prom” than quiet suburban Cults. And their protests about bright lights and noisy garden parties outside Birchwood House on South Avenue were enough to sway the planning committee.

The “permanently installed, gaudy, flashing, neon lights would be the envy of the promenade at Blackpool,” objectors claimed.

Mr Spearritt and his young family live on the upper floor of the flatted property. He argues the Aberdeen planning committee made such a poor decision the city should cover the cost of his fight.

The shed is next to an outdoor seating and barbecue area for the storage of equipment used in the course of “enjoying” the property, their appeal documents state.

Those include “outdoor furniture, gardening implements, barbeque and dining/drinking implements”.

Last December, councillors refused permission for the hut, which was already standing in the Spearritts’ fenced-off part of the grounds.

Roy Brown, a council planner with nearly a decade’s experience, urged approval.

Official documents stated how the shed was used was not a “material planning consideration”.

Yet the committee ruled against the building due to its perceived “adverse impact” on the downstairs households due to it being too close.

Councillors also said it was too large or prominent, and affected the overall look of Birchwood House.

The P&J was forced to resort to using freedom of information legislation to obtain images of the shed – as council planners refused to share them.

Now Mr Spearritt’s architects McWilliam Lippe have lodged an appeal.

The Scottish Government has appointed reporter Christine Brown of the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) to look at the case.

McWilliam Lippe Architects are using the words of council planning officer Roy Brown to make their case for them.

They claim the two reasons councillors gave for refusing permission “go against the valid and professional assessment of the development by the planning officer”.

Mr Brown briefed that the use of the shed was not a consideration for the planning committee.

The council planning officer wrote: “The intensity and nature of activity from the presence of this shed in this space is not materially different to had it not existed previously.

“As a householder development, planning permission is sought for the erection of this shed which, like the land on which it is located, is for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the existing dwelling”.

Neighbours complained the shed’s proximity to their windows impacted their quality of life.

Only three voted in favour of granting planning permission for the shed – “it’s a shed,” Councillor Neil Copland repeated – as 10 others voted for it to be moved or torn down.

But McWilliam Lippe argues the shed is a “sufficient and acceptable distance away” from their properties – contrary to the council’s first reason for refusing the shed planning permission.

The firm also rubbished the council’s second reason, that the shed’s spot in the garden, hardly visible over Mr Spearritt’s fence, was having an “adverse effect on the character, visual amenity or landscape setting” of Birchwood House.

Aberdeen City Council could be forced to pay if decision is overturned

Aberdeen City Council’s response to the appeal being lodged with the DPEA is yet to be published.

A spokeswoman declined to comment.

NEIGHBOURS WRANGLE: A planning image of Stuart Spearritt’s shed.

A front view of the flats on South Avenue, Cults.