Paolo Di Mambo built the two timber buildings, containing hot tub and what was believed to be storage, and a two-metre high fence at his home in Busby, East Renfrewshire
A man who built a shed for his hot tub has been ordered to tear it down after a bitter feud with the local council.
Paolo Di Mambro built the two timber buildings and a two-metre high fence at his home in Busby. East Renfrewshire Council told him to remove it, a decision neighbours are said to be happy about over a concern about noise.
The council had told Mr Di Mambro he would need to submit a retrospective application for permission in June last year. No bid was received but planners recommended in October 2023 no further action should be taken as the buildings were not “out of character”, reports Glasgow Live .
Councillors decided action should be taken, as they were concerned no response could lead to “a free for all”. In April this year, they ruled both buildings and the fence should be removed and an enforcement notice was issued.
The resident hoped the Scottish Government would overturn their ruling, but an independent reporter dismissed his case and had upheld the enforcement notice.
At the time, Cllr Andrew Morrison said the planning system was “only worth the extent to which we are prepared to enforce it when things go wrong”.
He added one of the huts had a hot tub, speakers and “various other items of home entertainment”, which he suspected is “where the noise nuisance is coming from”. The other shed is reportedly used for storage.
A council official previously explained it was “quite normal” for people who own houses to erect outbuildings without the need for permission but, in this case, a public footpath to the side of the property means it requires a planning application.
The enforcement notice also stated the development was “not acceptable to the planning authority on account of its location and proximity to adjacent properties, causing noise disturbance to the detriment of the occupants”.
Jam Consult Ltd, on behalf of Mr Di Mambro, said he had been advised he had permitted development rights. His appeal added the enforcement notice is “unfounded” and claimed the fence does “not face the footpath but is horizontal to the boundary fence, providing security and privacy to the back garden”.
However, the reporter, Amanda Chisholm, found he did not have permitted development rights and the notice was “clear in telling the recipient what he has done wrong and what is needed to remedy the breach of planning control”.
The reporter also decided not to award expenses to Mr Di Mambro for his appeal as the council had “not acted in an unreasonable manner”. The homeowner could appeal the ruling at the Court of Session.
She said councillors were “entitled to review the evidence” and “come to a different conclusion from that recommended” by officials.
