Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Glasgow City Council orders an “unacceptable” bike shed to be dismantled

Glasgow council ruled the shed be removed after receiving eight complaints

A wooden bike storage shed that was built in front of a Listed Building on Hamilton Drive in Glasgow’s West End has been ordered to be dismantled by city council planners.

The council served an enforcement notice to ‘owner’ Kelvin River Townhouses after a Scottish Government reporter dismissed the property owner’s appeal on the case.

Glasgow City Council has judged that the shed, built in a conservation area, does not follow guidance, is “unacceptable”, and does not comply with a policy that states sheds should be behind properties. 

The property owner, Kelvin River Townhouses, appealed the council's decision stating the modifications required were “excessive” and “less onerous" actions would fix the issues. 

An agent on behalf of the property owner said: “The bicycle store was erected in response to the demands of tenants in the flats to store their bicycles safely outside the property. There is an increased demand for this type of storage, as bicycle use is promoted in towns and cities as an alternative to car use.“

A similar case was resolved just last week in Birmingham, where Ruth Cumming won a planning appeal after the council first argued Cumming’s bike shed would be “out of keeping with the existing character” of the area. 

Also, this March, Glasgow City Council extended its own on-street, paid cycle storage facilities because they “recognise that the lack of bicycle storage at home is a significant barrier to everyday cycling. This is a particular problem in flatted and tenement type properties.”

Backing up their order to removing of the bike shelter on Hamilton Drive, the council planners said that the “grounds for service of an enforcement notice is robust and rooted” in the policy.

They also added: “The appellant has provided insufficient justification for the installation of the storage, and there have been no merits of the current arrangement highlighted which would outweigh planning policy. An alternative storage size was suggested by this service, which has not been accounted for in the appeal. There has also been no justification provided for the installation of the fence."

The Scottish Government reporter said that the removal of the cycle storage and fence would be the easiest option to: “simultaneously deal with the breach of planning control and injury to amenity set out in the reasons for issuing the enforcement notice”. They also said: “ I find that the breach of planning control and resulting injury to amenity cannot be remedied without the removal of the cycle storage and fence. Therefore, the requirements of the notice are not excessive.“

Suvi joined F-At in 2022, first writing for off-road.cc. She's since joined the tech hub, and contributes to all of the sites covering tech news, features, reviews and women's cycling content. Lover of long-distance cycling, Suvi is easily convinced to join any rides and events that cover over 100km, and ideally, plenty of cake and coffee stops. 

Add new comment

13 comments

Avatar
Born_peddling | 1 year ago
1 like

This has nothing to do with "in keeping" with the look of the local community some tool and 7 of their drinking mates decided that having a neighbor who openly cycles is obviously an embarrassment the local authority backing them up through outdated infrastructure management. Ie; they neither know or care if said owner/renter has suitable access to the rear of the property... It's shedgate 2.0 this is and it's Scottish (quarter scot myself) so they'll find a reason to argue/disallow out of habit either way. Try putting up a tartan bike tent and see if they complain about that!

Avatar
Philh68 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Makes me wonder what council would find acceptable. Cover it with artificial box hedge tiles, it'd probably blend right in.

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
6 likes

It wouldnt surprise me that the landlord built the shed so they could insist tenants do not take their bikes indoors. The landlords would assume that bikes could only cost £250 from Halfords. I have a similar cycle storage facility provided by our landlord but I won't use it as my bike will get stolen from it. D-locks only give 5 minutes of delay to a thief. The bike shed needs to be metal, secure and protected from prying eyes and the weather. 

Avatar
Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
0 likes

Couldn't they have turned it 90deg so the gable end is facing the white car (assuming that's where it's visibly offensive from), and moved it back a bit just out of the tree line?
It's not like it would need extensive footings, and unless there's a TPO on one of those trees, the rootballs wouldn't be particularly bothered by a concrete pad and subbase going over them.

The structure as is, it's pretty much in-your-face; but in a few years time when the wood has aged and darkened, you'll never notice it

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
0 likes

Oldfatgit wrote:

Couldn't they have turned it 90deg so the gable end is facing the white car (assuming that's where it's visibly offensive from), and moved it back a bit just out of the tree line? It's not like it would need extensive footings, and unless there's a TPO on one of those trees, the rootballs wouldn't be particularly bothered by a concrete pad and subbase going over them. The structure as is, it's pretty much in-your-face; but in a few years time when the wood has aged and darkened, you'll never notice it

but it blends perfectly into the fence, which will not need to be removed, so visually no change.

Avatar
Milkfloat | 1 year ago
8 likes

The car that is parked next door is far more of an eye-sore. 

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
0 likes

I deplore the general policy but repeated references to the fence are telling.  Both structures are pretty "in your face". 
 

I suspect there is an acceptable face of bike storage in Glasgow front gardens - it's just this isn't it. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
8 likes

What's needed is to convert car parking space into bike storage space.

Avatar
dodgy | 1 year ago
21 likes

1. Buy delapidated van with valid MOT / VED / insurance

2. Park out front

There's your bike storage and nobody can complain. Probably cheaper than the shed also. But even if not, would be quite satisfying.

Avatar
IanGlasgow replied to dodgy | 1 year ago
19 likes

That part of Hamilton Drive is a private road (set back from the main road), you probably wouldn't even need an MOT, VED or insurance (or a resident's permit which costs £85 a year in that part of town). Just declare the van SORN and leave it to rust, the neighbours will soon be begging you to buil;d a shed instead.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to IanGlasgow | 1 year ago
11 likes

Better still if you leave a note on it inviting locals to spraypaint artistic graffiti on it. The neighbours would probably pay you to rebuild the bike shed.

Avatar
spen replied to IanGlasgow | 1 year ago
1 like

There's a document from the house of commons library that says, if I remember correctly, that a vehicle with a sorn declaration has to be kept off a highway, public or private.  In other words a sorned vehicle has to be within land making up a property - on a private street it would need to be on a driveway, garde or yard or it could still be lifted by the DVLA ( we used to get calls from the DVLA at work about what rads were adopted and which were not, they didn't appper to be aware of this.  Thankfully I don't do tht anymore). 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to dodgy | 1 year ago
5 likes

Council-acceptable in-keeping-with-the-historic-character not-a-bike-shed.  (Scooter model shown but bike versions available).

Latest Comments