A council has told a homeowner he will likely have to tear down the chunk of Berlin Wall in his garden – because it is ‘oppressive’.
Steven Thorpe, 65, bought a section of the famous wall from a farmer in Germany and installed it at his home in Herne Hill earlier this year.
But neighbours, annoyed they could see the top over their fence, complained to Southwark Council, who have now said the ‘only option available is a planning enforcement notice.’
A letter written by a planning case officer, dated July 2 and received by Mr Thorpe on July 4, says he considers the installation of the wall to be ‘unacceptable’.
The 3.6-metre portion of the wall, which weighs more than two tonnes, also exceeds the 2-metre height limit for ‘gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure’ under planning regulations.’
And it goes on to say that the planning enforcement notice ‘is likely to require the removal of the works’. If Mr Thorpe does not comply, he could face a fine of up to £20,000.
Mr Thorpe, a property developer, says he’s going to appeal the case officer’s decision and disputes the measurements quoted.
He said: ‘I totally disagree with that – they’ve described a large reinforced concrete structure rather than a heritage artefact or sculpture.
‘I think that framing’s important, it underpins their conclusion simply as an unauthorised structure, when I consider it to be a historical artefact.’
The letter, however, said that the wall is ‘causing material harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property by reason of its overbearing scale, oppressive sense of enclosure and stark industrial appearance that is made worse here due to the massive scale and unnecessary siting of the wall so close to the garden boundary.’
Mr Thorpe added: ‘They’ve relied on the fact it’s 3.6 metres high, it’s not – its installed height is 3.1 metres. It’s ‘within 60cm of the boundary’ – well, it’s not, it’s 97cm from the boundary. ‘It exceeds the 2-metre height for fences and walls’, well, it’s not a wall, it’s an artefact.
‘It’s not enclosing any land, it’s a free-standing, historic artefact. There’s no explanation whatsoever of the alleged planning harm.