Planning a fence! Couple spend £15,000 buying plot of land beside their bungalow and building wall around it... only for council to refuse permission and order it pulled down

A retired couple who spent £15,000 turning spare ground beside their bungalow into a dream garden space have been ordered to turn it back into parkland.

Gordon Gaffney, 67, and his wife had wanted to extend their existing garden at their home in Balerno, near Edinburgh, to enjoy more sunshine.

They claim they took all the necessary steps to turn their dream into reality and applied to the City of Edinburgh Council last year to purchase ground beside their £300,000 property to extend their south-facing garden.

According to the Gaffneys the council initially said they had 'no issues' with the sale of the land and couldn't foresee any planning application problems

Gordon Gaffney and his wife had wanted to extend their existing garden at their home in Balerno, near Edinburgh

Mr Gaffney was told the council had 'no issues' with the sale of the land which was deemed 'surplus' to requirements and that gaining planning permission would not be a problem.

The couple then set about turning the 168-square yard area into a garden extension.

They erected a 5.5ft high wooden fence around the boundary and also planted a privet hedge row on the outside for privacy before applying for retrospective permission for it in August.

But they were left stunned when their application was refused by the council who said it did not comply with the local rules and had a 'detrimental impact' on the open space.

Mr Gaffney, a retired businessman, paid the council £6,769.20 for the ground and a further £3,655 on the fence and hedge.

The total cost to his pocket including appeal costs has now reached £15,000.

The City of Edinburgh Council have now said the 5.5ft high wooden fence around the boundary and a privet hedge row on the outside of  the Gaffneys home fails to comply with the local rules

The Gaffneys have now turned to the Scottish Government in a last ditch bid to have the council decision reversed and save their project.

A letter sent on their behalf to the government said: 'The appellant and his wife are now retired and have been longing for some south facing additional garden ground at their property to enjoy.

'With the knowledge that they could legally purchase an additional parcel of land from the City of Edinburgh Council to utilise as garden ground, they made an initial enquiry to the council through a councillor the development and disposals officer within the council's property and facilities team to ascertain whether a small portion of land adjacent to the southern boundary of their property could be sold to them for the sole purposes of providing additional private garden space.

'No indication was given to the appellant by the council or CEC that there would be an issue with this purchase.

'The council in their corporate view over the sale of the land to the appellant concluded that the land was surplus to their operational requirements and gave comfort to the appellant that there would be no issues gaining planning permission for a change of use.

It added: 'Whilst the proposed change of use will involve the loss of an incredibly small section of grassed area and will reduce the level of open space, it is considered that the loss of this section to residential use will have a minimal impact.

'The quality and character of the area will be unchanged by this reduction due to the level of green space remaining.

Mr Gaffney, a retired businessman, paid the council £6,769.20 for the ground and a further £3,655 on the fence and hedge

'It is recommended that the reporter considers the facts in front of them and after a site visit conclude that there is no basis to support the reason for refusal and respectfully request that it be overturned and the appeal be granted.'

In their ruling, the City of Edinburgh Council said: 'The council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts and regulations, now determines the application as refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

'The development does not comply with the local development plan and the change of use has a significantly detrimental impact on the open space.'

A government reporter will issue a decision in due course.