A couple fought to have a 20-foot-high “rollercoaster” from a wood yard removed because they felt it was ruining their landscape.
When a 118-foot steel racking was built without a permit on the opposite side of Jenny Mason, 46, and Stuart Dodd, 48, in Roudham, Norfolk, they were first incensed.
Ms. Mason referred to the metal building as a “monstrosity” and said that the “disgusting sight” obstructed their £325,000 semi-detached home’s view.
Following concerns from neighbours and the parish council, the wood yard’s brief reapplication for planning approval was denied.
The mother of three exclaimed that she was “over the moon” at the ruling, which practically obliges the company to remove the racks or risk legal repercussions.
Ms. Mason and Mr. Dodd enjoyed a view of woods and far-off fields when they first moved into their new house in April.
But when a 118-foot metal racking was erected immediately behind their back yard in July, they were taken aback.
The council required the lumber yard to reapply for planning approval in order for it to continue using the racking for product storage.
It would be damaging to the look of the street scene and the character of the region, according to officers, who called it “a visually noticeable element that fails to contribute to the overall quality of the area.”
“The difficulties are so fundamental to the plan that it has not been feasible to negotiate a reasonable resolution,” they said, adding that “approval has not been possible owing to the damage that has been clearly indicated within the reason(s) for the denial.”
After leaving their previous home in Slough, Berkshire, Ms Mason, who works with individuals with special needs, and Mr. Dodd said they had intended to enjoy a quiet country life in Roudham.
“We definitely liked this home when we acquired it,” she said. Although we were aware that there was a timber yard on the other side of the fence, we didn’t care. It was meant to be our ideal house.
We had previously lived in Slough, where we were within a short drive from Heathrow and had aircraft passing above, so we could tolerate a little amount of noise.
When Mr. Dodd, a landscape architect, arrived home from work and overheard the sound of a digger, he realised something was being created.
When he peered over his fence to inquire about the work being done by the contractors, he was informed that they were “building up a steel structure.”
Mr. Dodd said that when he went to the yard to protest, staff members informed him that the construction had planning approval.
But he discovered that no application had been submitted when he checked with Breckland Council.
A week or so later, when the couple was out at work, the racks arrived out of nowhere.
I was looking out of my bathroom window when I noticed this cherry picker and the enormous racking, according to Ms. Mason.
They said they couldn’t halt halfway through the project since the contractors had already been paid.
They were forced to apply for retroactive planning approval by the council, and they are not allowed to place anything on the racks until after a decision has been made.
“I turned around and asked them, “What the heck are you doing?”” The planning department was contacted, and while they were instructed to cease, they didn’t.
But we believe that they need to be forced to demolish it right now. Without getting authorization, they erected this eye sore with little regard for their neighbours.
It has made it impossible for us to enjoy our garden. Who wants to see this abomination while relaxing outside?
“It is absolutely abhorrent and terrible.” I fail to see how it could be approved. It is disgusting.
The yard manager acted strangely toward us and said that all of the neighbours were being icy.
“We understand that everyone must support himself, but it wouldn’t be so horrible if it were a little lower.” However, it is now too darn high.
When they searched before purchasing their Norfolk property, Mr. Dodd said they found no indication that the corporation intended to erect the racking.
He said, “We probably would not have purchased the home if it had been up when we looked at it.
When we first moved here, we improved the garden by introducing a few hens and establishing a small vegetable patch.
Then, three months later, this racking emerged out of nowhere. It spans the distance between four dwellings. The situation has angered every neighbour.
He said that he was worried that any plastic-wrapped wood goods kept on the racks would ruffle in strong winds, making a noisy annoyance and being unsightly.
Yay, we’ve done it! Ms. Dodd exclaimed with her neighbour after the pair triumphed in the struggle.
“We’ve sat and stared at it for six weeks without a planning permit, and now that it’s been denied, that’s made us all pretty unhappy,” she said.
We have received a lot of community support. We’ve all worked together and taken every action within our power. The fact that it was rejected is significant.
Phoebe, the 21-year-old student daughter of the couple, said, “This racking has damaged the view from my yard and bedroom.”
The racking was also opposed by neighbours John and Ameila Raby, who both work at the NHS.
“A visually prominent feature that fails to add to the overall quality of the area and would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and the character of the area,” officers said of the timber yard.
We weren’t told anything was going to happen, according to Mr. Raby. We consider it to be ugly. It shouldn’t have been situated so near to the homes of the neighbours.
‘It would not have harmed anybody if they had placed it further away in their yard. I am aware that they operate locally, provide employment, and have our support. It’s not about attempting to destroy a company. Doing the right thing is important.
The racking was referred to in planning documents Crendon Timber Engineering submitted to the council as proof of the company’s “long term investment” in their site.
The racking would provide “much needed additional storage capacity, which is necessary to meet current and future demands, especially with the growing housing market,” according to a design and access statement created by agents working for the firm.
Despite the fact that it was “visible from parts of the residential houses on Harling Road,” the statement claimed that racking was “expected to have little to no influence on the immediate environment, including residential properties.”
“The project should have little noise effect,” it said, “since the location is already utilised by the Applicant for storage.”
The company would be able to “operate more effectively with fewer truck movements and a safer alternative to the existing storage,” according to the statement.
The branch director of the company claimed to comprehend the worries of the locals. He said that “informal dialogues” had been held with them to see if the racking’s look might be enhanced.