Scots man to tear down hot tub shed after losing council appeal

East Renfrewshire Council instructed Paolo Di Mambro to remove his two timber buildings and a two-metre high fence.

A man has been ordered to tear down his hot tub shed after he lost an appeal against the council to keep it. East Renfrewshire Council instructed Paolo Di Mambro to remove his two timber buildings and a two-metre high fence at his Busby home after he installed it with no planning permission.

The resident hoped the Scottish Government would overturn their ruling, but an independent reporter dismissed his case and had upheld the enforcement notice. Several neighbours who live at nearby Printers Land are believed to be happy with the ruling. They had previously raised concerns about noise from the unauthorised buildings.

East Renfrewshire Council told Mr Di Mambro he would need to submit a retrospective application for permission in June last year. No bid was received but planners recommended in October 2023 that no further action should be taken as the buildings were not “out of character”, reports Glasgow Live.

Councillors decided action should be taken, as they were concerned no response could lead to “a free for all”. In April this year, they ruled that both buildings and the fence should be removed and an enforcement notice was issued.

At the time, Cllr Andrew Morrison, Conservative, said the planning system was “only worth the extent to which we are prepared to enforce it when things go wrong”.

He added one of the huts had a hot tub, speakers and “various other items of home entertainment”, which he suspected is “where the noise nuisance is coming from”. The other shed is reportedly used for storage.

A council official previously explained that it was “quite normal” for people who own houses to erect outbuildings without the need for permission but, in this case, a public footpath to the side of the property means it requires a planning application.

The enforcement notice also stated the development was “not acceptable to the planning authority on account of its location and proximity to adjacent properties, causing noise disturbance to the detriment of the occupants”.

Retrospective plans had been submitted in March 2023 but were withdrawn the next day. Jam Consult Ltd, on behalf of Mr Di Mambro, said he had been advised he had permitted development rights.

His appeal added the enforcement notice is “unfounded” and claimed the fence does “not face the footpath but is horizontal to the boundary fence, providing security and privacy to the back garden”.

Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!

Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.

You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.

No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.

All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!

If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.

We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like.

To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.

If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.

It also stated council officials had said the development would “not be out of character with the residential use of the site and would not give rise to significant additional noise and disturbance”.

However, the reporter, Amanda Chisholm, found he did not have permitted development rights and the notice was “clear in telling the recipient what he has done wrong and what is needed to remedy the breach of planning control”.

She said councillors were “entitled to review the evidence” and “come to a different conclusion from that recommended” by officials.

The reporter also decided not to award expenses to Mr Di Mambro for his appeal as the council had “not acted in an unreasonable manner”. The homeowner could appeal the ruling at the Court of Session.

Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond. Sign up to our daily newsletter.

Story SavedYou can find this story in  My Bookmarks.Or by navigating to the user icon in the top right.