A Glasgow resident has lost a fight to keep her decking, after a neighbour complained that it had led to a “total loss of privacy” in his back garden.
The raised decking had been put up at the back of a semi-detached house in Madison Avenue in the southside of the city.
It was part of an ‘extensive amount of work’ to spruce up the garden in 2020, which included new patio doors installed and astroturf laid.
But a neighbour objected to the 1.3m-high decking, saying it invaded their privacy – and Glasgow City Council has now launched a planning enforcement action over the feature.
Theresa McInally was unaware permission was needed for the decking in the first place and was initially refused retrospective planning permission for the wooden structure after it was built in the Cathcart area.
Objecting to the plan, neighbour Mr Speirs said: “The excessive height of the decking has resulted in a total loss of privacy in our rear garden as it is now completely over-looked.”
An appeal statement lodged on behalf of Mrs McInally dismissed the idea of overlooking.
The statement from Bennett Developments and Consulting said: “It is not possible to see into the neighbour’s garden other than the top of their drying whirligig.”
It added: “Indeed the gable window on the appellants’ house provides unbroken vistas into the adjoining garden, so if there is any instance of overlooking and impact on privacy, it is surely to be facilitated by this completely legal window.”
Despite their plea however, the appeal against the original refusal was knocked back this week at a planning local review committee. The meeting also heard concerns about the height of a bordering fence.
Refusing the appeal, councillor Jane Morgan said: “I think overlooking is more considerable from decking than through a window.”
The Labour politician added: “A three-metre fence is beyond our guidelines and would be a deprivation of sunlight and visually intrusive for any resident.”
Supporting the refusal, SNP councillor Eva Bolander said the applicant could potentially change the decking to comply with rules.
She said: “There is the possibility for the owners to reconfigure the decking so they would still be able to have decking that is slightly less intrusive for neighbours.”
Other reasons for the refusal including that the proposal was not in keeping with the development plan and was contrary to a number of council policies.
By local democracy reporter Sarah Hilley