Glasgow business owner wins appeal over council’s enforcement notice

Glasgow City Council had ordered Muharabu Mobali, the tenant at 4A Hanson Street in Dennistoun, to stop carrying out repairs to vehicles as the unit did not have the required planning permission.

But a reporter, appointed by Scottish Ministers to investigate the case, has ruled Mr Mobali is only providing minor vehicle repairs needed to support his work.

The enforcement notice was issued after concerns were raised with Cllr Elaine McDougall by her constituents. They said the property was being used as a garage and asked whether planning permission had been secured.

After a site visit, the council said the premises were “clearly being used for vehicle repairs”, which is a class five planning use, for general industry.

Council staff said the unit had permission for class four use, for business, including light industry, and ordered vehicle repairs to cease. They claimed a vehicle repair workshop is “not an appropriate use in close proximity to surrounding residential properties”.

The tenant, who runs IMS Auto Solutions, claimed only “very minor and light auto repairs” were carried out in the unit, and there was no “noise nuisance or disturbance”.

His appeal added it would be “very difficult and challenging for the business to survive if the notice served is implemented and the business forced to move to another location”.

Philip Barton, the reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers to investigate the issue, said he was satisfied the “original lawful use of the building was as class four and that a use for vehicle repairs would have constituted a breach of condition”.

However, he said 4A Hanson Street was “most likely created by the subdivision” of 4 Hanson Street, and planning permission was granted for class six, storage and distribution, at number 4 in 2000.

He said the council had referred him to the plans from 2000 so appeared “to be satisfied that 4A was once a part of number 4”.

The reporter added the “entire mezzanine and about four square metres of the remaining floorspace is currently being used for storage or distribution purposes”, including furniture, household goods and some engineering equipment.

“The appellant explained these items are being stored, awaiting shipment to Africa as humanitarian aid.”

He was satisfied that “the lawful use of 4A is as class six storage or distribution” and said, for storage and distribution use, vehicles would be coming and going and would require routine maintenance.

“The appellant states that he undertakes only minor repairs to vehicles that have failed their MOT test. No MOT testing is undertaken on the premises. This accords with what I saw.”

He said any noise from car repairs was “very unlikely” to be continuous throughout the day, so wouldn’t cause “significant harm” to the living conditions of nearby residents.

“I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is operating a separate business, the intensity and character of the use is such that it could be considered ancillary to the lawful use of the building for storage or distribution purposes.”

Mr Barton added if the council could prove that 4A was created as a separate planning unit, then enforcement for a breach of the 1997 planning permission would be possible.