Man ordered to remove hot tub shed after building without permission in East Renfrewshire

A man who built a shed for a hot tub at his home in Busby without planning permission has lost an appeal against the council’s order to remove it.

Councillors in East Renfrewshire decided Paolo Di Mambro should remove two timber buildings and a two-metre-high fence from his East Kilbride Road home, as they were installed without approval.

The homeowner called on the Scottish Government to overturn the ruling, claiming they were permitted developments — but an independent reporter dismissed his case.

It means an enforcement notice ordering the removal of the sheds and fence has been upheld. Some residents of nearby Printers Land are understood to be delighted with the ruling after raising concerns about noise from the unauthorised buildings.

East Renfrewshire Council 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 that no further action should be taken as the buildings were not “out of character”.

Councillors decided to take action, as they were concerned that no response could lead to “a free-for-all.”

In April this year, they ruled that both buildings and the fence should be removed and an enforcement notice was issued.

At the time, Cllr Andrew Morrison, Conservative, said the planning system was “only worth the extent to which we are prepared to enforce it when things go wrong”.

He added that one of the huts had a hot tub, speakers, and “various other items of home entertainment,” which he suspected was “where the noise nuisance is coming from”. The other shed is reportedly used for storage.

A council official previously explained that 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”.

Retrospective plans were submitted in March 2023 but withdrawn the next day. 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”.

It also stated council officials had said the development would “not be out of character with the residential use of the site and would not give rise to significant additional noise and disturbance”.

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”.

She said councillors were “entitled to review the evidence” and “come to a different conclusion from that recommended” by officials.

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.