A Cults 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 Aberdeen planning committee.
The “permanently installed, gaudy, flashing, neon lights would be the envy of the promenade at Blackpool,” objectors claimed.
Cults shed/bar used to store ‘drinking implements’ used to ‘enjoy’ garden
Mr Spearritt and his young family live on the upper floor of the flatted property.
And he’s arguing the Aberdeen planning committee made such a poor decision that the city should cover the cost of his fight.
The Spearritts appear to have been caught up in a neighbourly feud with the two households downstairs, who fought hard against their latest garden project.
The shed has been built next to an outdoor seating and barbeque 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”.
Council planner Roy Brown urged Cults shed’s approval
Last December, councillors refused planning permission for the wooden 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 published ahead of the council’s decision stated how the shed was used was not a “material planning consideration”.
Yet the planning committee ruled the 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 Press and Journal was forced to resort to using freedom of information legislation to obtain images of the condemned shed – as council planners refused to otherwise share them.
Now Mr Spearritt’s architects McWilliam Lippe have lodged an appeal against the planning committee’s decision.
The Scottish Government has appointed reporter Christine Brown of the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) to look at the case.
Cults shed appeal: Council planner makes the case for approval
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 planning 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.
Environmental health officers or police could look at the alleged “fairground duck shooting gallery” lighting and noise.
But Mr Brown’s caution to councillors has now been lifted and reused by McWilliam Lippe Architects in making their case for the decision to be overturned.
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 domestic shed which, like the land on which it is located, is for any purpose that is incidental to the enjoyment of the existing dwelling”.
He went on to add that the shed “does not itself enable or result in an intensity of use or activity materially different” to if it were not built at all.
Claims: Complaints over Cults shed’s closeness to neighbours’ homes unfounded
Neighbours complained the shed’s proximity to their windows was impacting 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.
The architects wrote: “The issue of noise, or what the appellant may use the shed for, clearly confused the planning committee, despite the clear advice from officers that the use of the shed was not a determining factor in deciding whether to grant planning permission.
“It is a small, domestic, timber shed and is not an ‘entertainment complex’.”
Cults shed owner refutes drunken ‘swearing and raucous behaviour’
Mr Spearritt also used the appeal as a vehicle for airing frustrations with the process – and his neighbours.
His agents added: “[He] rejects accusations of ‘swearing and raucous behaviour due to excessive alcohol consumption late at night’.
“The appellant also takes offence to the suggestion that ‘this is a bar masquerading as a shed’ and is “not a ‘normal planning application’.
“How the appellant chooses to use his outdoor residential space, on the limited days it is possible to do so, is not a material planning consideration.
“[Mr Spearritt] considers this to be a pleasant area for enjoying his outdoor space and it is not a ‘fairground’.”
Aberdeen City Council could be forced to pay if decision is overturned
McWilliam Lippe claimed that as councillors had failed to take “cognisance of the proper planning merits”, Mr Spearritt would look to lump Aberdeen City Council with their bill if the appeal is successful.
Aberdeen City Council’s response to the appeal being lodged with the DPEA is yet to be published.
In the meantime, a spokeswoman declined to comment.
Conversation