Neighbours rally with 100 signatures on petition to support March couple who built a shed that fell foul of Fenland planners

Bottom and middle top: The shed in Papworth Road, March, under fire from planners. Top L and R examp

Bottom and middle top: The shed in Papworth Road, March, under fire from planners. Top L and R examples of other sheds in March. - Credit: Archant

A couple forced to apply for retrospective permission for a shed and a fence are being supported by more than 100 friends and neighbours who signed a petition backing their application.

The petition submitted to Fenland Council says the shed at 6 Papworth Road, March, “only improves the aesthetics of the area”.

And the couple behind the application have been around other parts of March photographing similar sheds that they say the council have neither approved nor taken action against.

Helena Mueller says in her application that officials who came out to her home put through incorrect information about the area and wrongly appraised the work that had been carried out.

Her agent told the council that she was willing to ‘stain the walls in a colour that will make the shed blend in with the house’ and would be happy for talks to agree the colour.

The council has also been told that the Muellers would be prepared to agree to planting around the shed “to form a partial green wall”.

The agent said: “The extra front garden and shed are part of Mr and Mrs Muller’s improvement scheme to the front of the house which replaced the former weedy gravel and concrete path with new paving and fences which enhance the area.”

Most Read

He added that extra land bought by the Muellers at the front for the shed means that there has been no disruption to on-site parking.

“There is overwhelming support for this application from the local community and neighbours,” the agent has told the council.

And he argued that it would not set a precedent for other applications “as it is a unique dwelling plot and any future similar applications would be controlled by the planning applications which would be refused. They would be a different location with different circumstances and a significant parking reason for refusal.”

In conclusion the agent argued that the proposals by his clients “do no harm to the character of the area and will enhance the area”/

Among letters of support one woman wrote that “I watched the progress of this and to hear that a slight planning misdemeanour has occurred and the fact she might have to change her drive way is disturbing.

“The property has benefited greatly from the addition. It looks very nice and tidy and is an asset. “

March Town Council says there is “no apparent reason” why the application should be refused.