'INCOMPLETE GARAGE' FAILS TO IMPRESS REPORTER

A developer’s appeal against an Enforcement notice on his East Scotland Street Lane studio dwelling was finally dismissed yesterday (Ref. ENA-230-281; see pdf at foot of page).

Mr Dermot Ferrigan of Craigcrook Road, Edinburgh had been told by City of Edinburgh Council in November to remove the structure, which he had initially received permission for as a replacement garage in June 2012 (Ref. 12/01543/FUL). He was refused retrospective permission to change its use to a studio flat in August last year (Ref. 13/01863/FUL), and an appeal against that decision was dismissed in December 2013.

Mike Croft, the Reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers, did not consider Ferrigan’s ‘numerous complaints’ about Council officers, or anybody's comments about whether planning permission should be granted for the building. He was concerned only with the substance of the Enforcement notice. 

Having visited the site in February, he agreed with the Council that the structure deviated from what had been consented in respect of its excess height, it being rendered and painted dark grey, and the laying down of concrete in front of the glass screen and single door. He also agreed that it failed to provide the specified:

• stone ingoes 
• wood cladding above the door
• roller garage door (rather than glass screen and door)
• cupola (rather than window overlooking neighbour’s garden).

‘At one point in his submissions,’ wrote the Reporter, ‘the appellant claims that the building “is built per approved plans”. As a plain matter of fact, that is not so. I am satisfied that what has been built is not what has been permitted’.

Referring to Mr Ferrigan’s arguments that the garage was not yet complete, the Reporter said he was not aware ‘of any reasonable explanation for installing a glass screen and single door as part of the process of building a garage, simply because it bars the entry and exit of vehicles’.

He also thought Ferrigan’s intentions for the structure had been made clear by its internal partitions, wooden parquet floor, kitchen cupboards, sink, oven and washing machine.  

Ferrigan had argued that removing the structure, as per the Council’s Enforcement order, would be greatly excessive. Croft disagreed: ‘It would be impracticable to specify all the steps necessary to render the building compliant with the terms of that permission. In these circumstances I consider that it would be wrong to try to vary the terms of the enforcement notice in this way’.

Ferrigan now has six weeks in which to appeal to the Court of Session if he suspects the Reporter’s decision is defective on some point of law. 

Failing that, the structure will have to be demolished. 

It is fair to say that many neighbours on Bellevue Crescent greeted news of the Reporter's decision yesterday with satisfaction.

For previous coverage of this story, see Breaking news, (28.5.13; 21.8.13; 4.2.14).

--------------

 Fergus Smith "not aware ‘of any reasonable explanation for installing a glass screen and single door as part of the process of building a garage, simply because it bars the entry and exit of vehicles’."

Sometimes I really like dry bureaucratese ...

 Scott Richards This would make an excellent bike garage....