Planners said this 'monstrosity' garden room would be 'barely visible'

·2-min read
Lorraine Eadie, pictured in her garden with the new garden room under construction just over the boundary  Picture: Mike Laycock
Lorraine Eadie, pictured in her garden with the new garden room under construction just over the boundary Picture: Mike Laycock

PLANNERS have apologised after wrongly stating that a garden room proposed at a York property would be 'barely visible' to neighbours because it would be screened by trees and shrubs.

City of York Council has admitted that a planning application for the large wooden structure indicated that the trees along the shared boundary would be felled, but this was overlooked by a case officer writing the report.

Resident Lorraine Eadie says she was left in tears after the trees were felled and the 'monstrosity' was built, looming over her garden.

Miss Eadie, of Elmfield Avenue, off Malton Road, said that when the application was submitted for the garden room at the back of a property in Sefton Avenue, she didn't object because she thought she wouldn't see it.

A council planning officer's report stated: "It will be very well screened by trees and shrubs and will not harm the visual amenity of the existing dwelling, or immediate surrounding area...

"The proposal was viewed from the rear garden of No.46 Elmfield Avenue and the occupier has no objections to the proposal.

"The degree of screening on the shared boundary of her property (and other adjoining properties) means the structure will barely be visible. In consequence, no significant neighbour amenity issues arise."

But Miss Eadie was then horrified when first the trees came down and then construction started on the garden room, which will be 7 metres wide, 4.5 metres long and 4.5m high.

"Significant neighbour amenity issues’ have certainly arisen!" she said. "It's a monstrosity!"

She said she had received an email from enforcement officer Paul Chadwick saying the dimensions of the building were in accordance with the approved plan and there were no conditions that the trees should remain.

But now she had received another email from Principal Development Management Officer Simon Glazier, saying that the application form submitted with both applications indicated that the trees along the shared boundary were to be removed in order to carry out the proposal.

"It is acknowledged that the officer report makes reference to the degree of screening on the shared boundary, and states that as a result, the structure would barely be visible," he said.

"Clearly, the reference on the application form to the trees being removed was overlooked by the case officer, for which I apologise.

"However, the report does not state that the application would have been refused had there been no screening in place, and in the absence of a condition requiring the trees to remain, the development is not in breach of the planning permission."

A council spokesperson told The Press: "We are aware of the complaint in question and are currently in dialogue with the complainant."

The resident building the garden room was unavailable for comment.