An Aberdeen couple have been ordered to return ancient woodland they decided to adopt as part of their back garden.
Pamela Horne and her husband became embroiled in a spat with Aberdeen City Council over public ground behind their home at Middleton Circle.
Mrs Horne argued the “neglected” open land in Bridge of Don had been “enhanced” under her ownership since she took it on four years ago.
She explained that she had removed “hazardous” vegetation and installed bat boxes and birdhouses to help biodiversity in the area.
Mrs Horne argued she had spoken to multiple parties, including the landowner, and claimed she did not get any objections.
She also believed that as the fencing was installed four years ago, she was “immune from enforcement action”.
Why did the council want the Bridge of Don application refused?
In 2019, the homeowner installed a timber fence around the land, along with a gate and small steps to adjust to the ground level change.
She hoped that by adopting the land, she would save it from litter louts and an “encroachment of weeds”.
The matter recently went before the local review body.
Planner Lucy Greene revealed that Aberdeen City Council did not own the land but was unsure who actually did.
She also revealed that Mrs Horne suggested councillors visit the site to get a better understanding of why the extension was needed.
But, local authority planners stated that the unauthorised extension had resulted in the loss of a valued area of open space.
And, they thought the irregular boundary now in the neighbourhood would negatively impact the character and appearance of the suburban area.
Planning chiefs also said the retrospective application should be refused as it went against council policy.
Fears over setting ‘very dangerous precedent’ for other gardens
Councillor Neil Copland believed officers were “spot on” to want the application refused, branding it a “land grab”.
He said: “The applicant has implied that they’ve contacted the landowner, but at the same time they say that ownership is unclear.
“And then they say ‘anyway, you can’t do anything about it because it’s been there for four years’.
“That would tend to suggest they’ve made a land grab and think we can’t do anything about it – well, we can.”
Do you think the homeowner should have been allowed to keep the changes? Let us know in our comments section below
Mr Copland added: “It would set a very dangerous precedent if we allow somebody to grab somebody else’s ground and build on it to suit themselves.
“We simply cannot allow someone to just grab a bit of land and put fence around it.”
Councillors went on to unanimously refuse the application, meaning the couple will have to undo their work.
‘It wasn’t a land grab’
Mrs Horne later told The Press and Journal that it “wasn’t a land grab”, as she actually had spoken to the owners who were fine with the arrangement.
She explained she has had trouble in the past when trees have come down on the site, as the council has been unable to help as it doesn’t come under its ownership.
Mrs Horne argued that the ownership of the plot shouldn’t have been considered a factor in the debate.
The couple are considering whether to appeal the council’s decision.
Read more:
Conversation