Planning inspectorate backs decision to refuse permission for gazebo and statue

Terry Ciesielski, of Whitchurch, said he initially thought the structure counted as garden furniture and didn’t need consent, but later submitted a retrospective planning application to cover it.

Shropshire Council’s planning department refused and government-appointed inspector Karen Taylor has backed this, dismissing Mr Ciesielski’s appeal.

In an appeal submission, Mr Cielsielski’s planning agent said he had a “strong desire” to keep the site, at The Beeches, open for “public amenity use”, despite now owning it privately. Ms Taylor said the presence of a box hedge and boulders around the 500 sq m patch of land contradicted this.

“The gazebo is of a Victorian style and is constructed of ornate metal with a dome roof,” she wrote.

“It has partly open sides but contains a seating area and is positioned on a decorative paved base. The statue has been placed within the gazebo.

“Observations from my site visit included that the gazebo has been installed with lighting.”

“The gazebo is located in a prominent position towards the frontage of the land and results in the structure being clearly visible in the street scene towards the entrance and from the end of the cul-de-sac.

“The gazebo, in combination with its overall scale, materials, depth and substantial height appears as an incongruous addition.

“This is further exacerbated by the siting of the large statue within the gazebo. The statue is of a stark appearance due to its design, materials and feature characteristics.”

'Restricted'

A supporting statement, accompanying Mr Cielsielski’s appeal, pointed out that the gazebo is not fixed down, and is not intended as a permanent fixture.

“The applicant had assumed the gazebo was garden furniture and not a building or enclosure,” it adds.

Shropshire Council planning officers’ report – which led to the original refusal decision, in February – described the gazebo and statue as “harmful both in terms of adverse visual impact and diminished public amenity”.

An appeal statement, prepared by Garner Town Planning on behalf of Mr Cielsielski, called this judgment “fundamentally flawed” as “it seems to be based solely on the opinion of some local residents and, secondly, as the land will remain available and well-maintained for public amenity use with the gazebo adding visual interest and a seating area.”

It adds: “It is the strong desire of the appellant to keep the appeal site open for use by all.”

Ms Taylor acknowledged that the land “was originally designated as part of a larger housing development for public open space but was subsequently sold to the appellant”. She also acknowledged that, as owner, Mr Cielsielski could freely decide whether to allow public access or not.

“However, I did observe that access to the land is somewhat restricted and confusing by the nature of the landscaping,” she added.

“Anybody wishing to access the land would have to navigate over or through the planting, boulders and box hedge.”