Man ordered to take down £50k decking

A man has been ordered to take his decking down.A man has been ordered to take his decking down.
A man has been ordered to take his decking down.
A man who spent £50,000 on installing wooden decking in the garden of his house in Bearsden has been ordered to pull it down.

Engineering boss Douglas Burns thought he’d found the perfect solution for his sloping garden when he decided to have the balcony built to enjoy the views.

However, he failed to get planning permission from East Dunbartonshire Council before the decking was erected and neighbours complained to the local authority.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

They claimed that the three metre-high wooden structure invaded their privacy and could reduce the value of their homes.

Mr Burns (52) asked council bosses to allow him to keep it in place.

He also offered to plant a row of trees to hide the offending new decking from view.

However East Dunbartonshire Council has insisted that he removes the decking which they have called “alien and incongruous”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He appealed to the Scottish Government in a last-ditch bid to reverse the decision but he missed the deadline for the paperwork which means that the council decision must stand.

Mr Burns, a highly repected engineer who gave expert evidence into the Buncefield fuel depot explosion in Hemel Hempstead, has now been given three months to tear down the decking.

He is very disappointed that he now faces the prospect of further cost.

He had hoped that his appeal would be successful.

Council documents stated: “In this case the raised platform area is, by reason of the gradient of the land and the form its design has taken, highly prominent when viewed from houses to the rear of the application site and the land to the west of the application site.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The height of the structure and use of gabion baskets mean that the design of the platform area is highly visible.

“This type of structure and in particular the materials used are completely out of character with a rear garden setting and is harmful to the visual amenities of the neighbouring residents.”