Dingwall 78ft decking dispute decision

A ROSS-SHIRE homeowner will not have to dismantle a 78ft long platform of unauthorised decking in his garden after a visit by planning committee members.

Gordon Christie put up the platform at his home in Mountrich Place, Dingwall, without proper consent, sparking complaints from a neighbouring landowner who is concerned that it overlooks his property.

Members of the North Area Planning committee were torn over the dispute but have decided the decking should remain up after a site visit to view it this week.

Members were told that Mr Christie mistakenly looked at the UK rather than Scottish guidelines for planning permission applications and was ill-advised by the contractor building the decking, who said permission would not be needed.

But his neighbouring landowner, Dr Daniel Murphy, wrote to the council to complain. Dr Murphy, of Ardival East, Strathpeffer, secured planning permission in 2011 to build a house on the adjoining land to the south of Mr Christie’s property.

Mr Murphy expressed concern about the intrusive nature of the decking and loss of privacy to the future house he is building 16ft away.

The 8ft high decking rises above the 6ft high mutual boundary fence.

Dafydd Jones, area planning manager for the north, said Mr Christie had made an honest mistake but the committee should order him to remove the decking because it compromised the privacy of his neighbour.

He said: "The decking has been created as a platform where you can look down and regard the other property. He probably became accustomed to not having a neighbour."

Dingwall and Seaforth councillor Margaret Paterson urged fellow members to leave the decking where it was.

She said: "All the houses up there are overlooking because that’s the lie of the land. It’s on a slope. All the houses are overlooking the one down below, and some are even worse than this one."

There was unanimous agreement from fellow councillors.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.