The wooden bicycle storage unit and fence were erected in front of 33 Hamilton Drive – a listed building in a conservation area. The council received eight complaints about the fence and cycle shelter in the Hillhead area.
Glasgow City Council ruled they did not follow guidance and are “unacceptable” pointing out among other issues a policy stating sheds should be behind properties or “least open” to the public view.
The council planners’ decision has been upheld by a Scottish Government reporter this week following an appeal lodged by ‘owner’ Kelvin River Townhouses regarding the site at Flat 0/1, 33 Hamilton Drive.
An agent acting on behalf of the firm said in a statement: “The bicycle store was erected in response to the demands of tenants in the flats to store their bicycles safely outside the property. There is an increased demand for this type of storage, as bicycle use is promoted in towns and cities as an alternative to car use. “
The statement added: “The area where the storage has been erected is hidden from the street by trees and foliage in the garden.”
The council served an enforcement notice to ‘owner’ Kelvin River Townhouses asking for the fence and cycle storage to be removed.
But the company appealed the decision on the grounds that the steps required were “excessive” and “less onerous” actions would remedy the issues.
The council said the cycle shelter and fence are “unacceptable in the context of the curtilage of the listed building and conservation area.”
It said the “grounds for service of an enforcement notice is robust and rooted” in policy.
It added: “The appellant has provided insufficient justification for the installation of the storage, and there have been no merits of the current arrangement highlighted which would outweigh planning policy. An alternative storage size was suggested by this service, which has not been accounted for in the appeal. There has also been no justification provided for the installation of the fence.”
Backing up the council, the Scottish Government reporter said: “ The removal of the cycle storage and fence would simultaneously deal with the breach of planning control and injury to amenity set out in the reasons for issuing the enforcement notice.
“I find that the breach of planning control and resulting injury to amenity cannot be remedied without the removal of the cycle storage and fence. Therefore, the requirements of the notice are not excessive. “
Dismissing the appeal, the reporter added: “The requirement seeking the removal of the cycle storage and fence is proportionate to remedy the breach.”