A homeowner who attempted to save her garage from demolition by altering its appearance with artificial plants and cladding is continuing to seek approval after planners twice rejected her applications.
However, Yanka Ivanova, the owner of the garage in Prestonpans, Scotland, was told her alterations were made in vain as her retrospective application would not be granted for the new structure. The large garage was originally built without planning permission.
Ms Ivanova has now appealed to Scottish Ministers following the refusal of retrospective planning permission by East Lothian Council, as she seeks to save her 72m² garage.
How did the garage originally look?
The garage was initially built with galvanised metal cladding on a timber frame and included two roller shutter doors for vehicles.
The first retrospective planning application labelled the structure as a 'domestic garage', but the 72m² garage is comparable in size to some nearby homes.
The garage measures 9 meters in length, 8 meters in width and 3.85 meters in height, featuring a pitched roof.
Why was the garage decorated with artificial plants?
Ms Ivanova was told planning permission was needed for the garage after she had already built it and when she applied for retrospective planning her application was refused.
The planning officer explained in the rejection letter: "Due to the large size and scale of its galvanised steel finish, the garage appears industrial in character and is not in keeping with the size, scale and finish of the outbuildings in the rear gardens of other houses in the area."
The council ordered the industrial-sized garage to be removed from the garden.
To gain retrospective planning and save the garage, Ms Ivanova made several modifications, including cladding the structure in timber, painting elements in dark green and adding artificial plants to soften its appearance and blend it with the surroundings.
Why was planning permission rejected again for the garage?
East Lothian Council rejected the latest of Ms Ivanova's planning applications, despite efforts to alter its appearance.
The council once again refused planning permission insisting the garage still did not fit the character of the neighbourhood. The structure was still described as "overbearing, intrusive, and incongruous" and an enforcement notice was issued, again demanding its removal.
Undeterred, Ms Ivanova has taken her case to the Scottish Government, appealing the decision. Her representatives argue that the garage has been significantly altered to reduce its visual impact and that similar outbuildings of varying sizes exist in the area.
Ms Ivanova must now wait for the outcome of the appeal to see if her garage can remain.
