A GARGRAVE pensioner has been given three months to demolish a ‘garden shed’ used to store his mobility scooter after a government planning inspector ruled in favour of Craven District Council.

An online petition ‘Help Save Thomas Harrison’s Garden Shed’ was set up by Mr Harrison’s grand daughter Lucy Ackroyd after the council said last May the shed was unauthorised and would have to come down within three months.

The petition on the change.org website was signed by more than 3,800, with people describing the actions of the council as ‘insensitive’ and calling for the shed, in Mr Harrison’s garden in South Street, to be left alone.

The family of Mr Harrison, who is in his late 80s and is disabled, said the shed was needed to store his mobility scooter and gardening materials, but the council said the structure was originally described as a ‘timber clad summer house’, had electricity and insulation, double doors and a rooflight and not at all what could be expected from a garden shed.

Now, following a site visit in January, a government planning inspector has dismissed an appeal by Mr Harrison’s wife, Nancy, and upheld the council’s enforcement notice calling for the shed to be demolished.

In her decision notice, inspector Elaine Gray said main concern was the impact of the shed on the setting of the nearby grade two listed Ivy House Farm, a house that dates back to the early part of the 19th century. She could also see no ‘compelling reason’ why the scooter could not be kept in another structure that fell within permitted development limits.

Ms Gray, who describes the shed as a ‘summer house’ says it is highly visible and dominates the view from the back of Ivy House Farm, so harming the significance of the listed building.

“I acknowledge Mr Harrison’s need to store his mobility scooter in the summer house, due to the difficulty of having it in the main dwelling, however, this is a private benefit, and does not count in favour of the appeal scheme. I see no compelling reason why the scooter could not be kept in a structure that fell within permitted development limits.”

Ms Gray continues that Mr and Mrs Harrison indicated that the ridge height of the summer house could be adjusted to make it an acceptable height ,but that in this case, given the ongoing harm to the conservation area and the setting of the listed building, and also the availability of an alternative solution, she did not consider it to be appropriate.

Referring to the amount of time needed to demolish the summerhouse and the Harrison's argument that they be given a year, she says three months is reasonable.

“I accept that neither the appellant or her husband are physically able to dismantle the summer house and remove it. In view of this circumstance, the appellant contends that she needs a longer time period to arrange for a third party to dismantle and remove the summer house.

“However, the structure appears to be relatively light weight in terms of materials, and there is no evidence to show that it would be particularly complex or time consuming to remove. In the absence of any detailed explanation as to why it should take more than three months to organise such a task, I consider the time period to be reasonable in this regard.”

Ms Gray further dismisses concerns about finding an alternative location for the mobility scooter.

“(The appellant) states that further applications might be made for a smaller building. The existing building could be adjusted in height to permitted development limits. Such a solution would not need planning permission and so it is unclear why additional time would be needed for discussion. In any case, a 12 month period would be unacceptable in view of the harm to the heritage assets.

“I therefore consider the period of three months to be reasonable in which to comply with the requirements of the notice.”