Nothing wrong with grabbing land to make our gardens grow

Jan 31 2008 By Ian McIntosh

I am writing in reply to last week’s article in the Advertiser — Row over ‘land grab’ — about the debate over the extended gardens in Shiel Drive, Larkhall.

I am one of the residents who moved the fences back to extend our gardens. I felt that the article last week was very biased in favour of the few who have complained. The article covered two entirely separate issues — the moving of the fences and the maintenance of the public areas. By merging them into one story, the impression was given that councillor Jackie Burns had taken the side of the objectors whereas, as far as I could see, he was only commenting on the public areas issue.

The council’s position on the moving of the fences has been made clear: they are neutral and will accept the will of the majority of residents.

Here are the facts of the matter leading up to when we moved our fences.

Firstly, every effort was made by us to try to determine who owned the land so that we could approach them and ask permission to move the fences or attempt to buy the land. I have been in the estate for nearly three years and my neighbours had been researching the position and trying to find out where we stood since long before that.

Their search took them as far as Edinburgh as well as South Lanarkshire Council and the builders involved. The answer they got was that the land was owned by a builder who had since gone out of business. At this point, the council said it was nothing to do with them.

Secondly, the land itself was of no use to anyone. It occupies an area between Merryton Farm road and the back fences of the houses and its location meant that nothing practical could ever be done with it.

The ground had been neglected since the houses were first built, had grown to waist-high in weeds, nettles and bramble and was so uneven that it was impossible to walk on. It was never used by anyone for any purpose other than to occasionally dump rubbish.

When we moved our fences back, we each paid a private contactor to level the land with a mechanical digger. Nothing was said at that time and no objections were made by anyone. As far as I am led to believe, the first time an objection was raised was when one resident was told to move his fence back to its original position and pointed out to the council that we had moved our fences, so why shouldn’t he be allowed to move his. However, his fence was facing in a different direction and was not one of the row behind Merryton Farm road. Whether he had to reinstate his fence should have had no bearing on ours. At this point the council got themselves involved and sent letters to those who had moved their fences, demanding that they be reinstated to their former positions. After some consultation the council softened their position somewhat and stated that we would require retrospective planning permission to move the fences. They stated that, in their opinion, the land was communally owned by the whole estate and we would need a majority of the residents to agree to give their consent.

It was also at this point that the council noticed that the estate did not have a factor and said that we would require one to maintain the communal areas. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of people in the estate couldn’t really care less about the land or the fact we moved our fences. If we had to reinstate the ground to its previous condition, it would be a further expense for the estate to maintain it and it would still be useless to anyone because of its location.

We would also be entitled to expect compensation for our expense in clearing the land in the first place. This would need to be met by the entire estate. So in summary, after five years of trying to find out who owned it and an being unable to get an answer, we cleared some waste ground and moved our fences back. I would ask those who object to that what they would like to see done with the land, and whether they are prepared to pay for it to be done. One final point. One of the homeowners who were objecting was quoted as saying: “Everyone has paid a certain amount for their homes and we can’t just let people grab land.” The implication here is that those of us who have gained a bit of extra garden will profit at the expense of the rest of the estate. But if our properties become more valuable as a result, house prices in the whole estate will rise therefore benefitting everyone. If the land is reinstated back to an overgrown dumping ground, everyone will lose out.

Ian McIntosh, 63 Shiel Drive, Larkhall.