22 September - Don’t dare to be different, Bexley council might sue you
Today Bexley council intends to decide if a Section 215 Untidy Sites Act Notice should be issued to compel a resident to clear some less than expertly built garden structures because of complaints from a neighbour. The photographs taken yesterday show rubbish stored on the roof of two dilapidated sheds, a badly rotted garage door that provides a ready access for rodents and has not seen a paint brush for many a long year and decking to provide shelter for any wildlife that requires it. There is no lawn to speak of, just odd clumps of grass and a rear fence on to a railway line that is not in a particularly good state and hides oddments of garden rubbish that have found their way over it. None of it is what a keen gardener or house proud resident would want to see. But that description and the photographs are not the subject of Bexley council’s attentions, what you see here is the less than award winning rear garden of the complainant to Bexley council, their victim’s neighbour.
The victims
are a married couple and their garden
is not the traditional lawn and flowerbeds but is described by a local
beekeeper and conservationist as “a model bee garden” and “of great benefit to
wildlife in general and bees and butterflies in particular”. It also includes some old sheds and
fruit cages which are similar in appearance to those on nearby allotments
and secluded from view by many trees. It’s not at all like most gardens but I can
see a certain amount of charm and quaintness in it (see photo gallery) but much
more importantly the owners love it and regard it as their hobby and outlet for
self-expression. It is certainly not ‘derelict’ as defined and illustrated (see
example left) in the Section 215 legislation and guidance to councils; so why
might Bexley council champion the owner of a neglected garden against another
who spends a lot of time on theirs?
One reason could be is that the lady of the house has long been a thorn in Bexley
council’s side. She writes letters about them to newspapers and is not reticent
when it comes to reporting them to the Local Government Ombudsman. Another thought
that worries the lady is that she claims to have been set upon by her neighbour
with a large builder’s spirit level, knocked to the ground and held there,
following which Bexley council’s friends in the police did not cover themselves in glory.
Her intention that day was to retrieve articles allegedly removed from her
outbuildings without permission but one of her complaining neighbours video’d proceedings.
The victims reported the neighbour to the police and when they eventually arrived they
arrested the wife, made door-to-door enquiries and
then charged her; the neighbour later offering video evidence that the petite lady
had assaulted him. The case against her collapsed when the Crown Prosecution
Service saw the video evidence; it showed no assault. The police have sent a
letter of apology for their conduct, from Borough Commander Stringer no less.
The lady victim fears that having crossed Bexley council’s uniformed wing there will be retribution.
The preceding paragraph has been confirmed by the lady’s legal adviser and
documentation. Why the police took no action over the neighbour’s allegation of assault
which proved groundless remains a mystery. Bexleyheath police doesn’t pursue those they see
as their friends. Now the lady fears that Bexley council is intent on descending
on her mob handed to serve an enforcement notice.
The victims say that the complaining neighbour has been steadily encroaching
on their land by levering over or otherwise moving the fence. Within the past week
tensioned strings have been tied to trees which have the effect of pulling the fence
in the desired direction and another string stretched between the house and the
victim’s side of the fence post at the rear of the garden shows the fence to be
noticeably curved towards the victims’ garden. The photo gallery attempts to
illustrate the effect.
A further complaint is that the ‘eyesore’ of the garden structures can be seen
from nearby house windows. I climbed on to the roof of one of them to see if this could
be true and found it wasn’t. See photo gallery. I also twice rode on the train that
passes by on an embankment at the end of the garden to see if it stood out in
any way. It did not, it was barely visible and not the worst sight among nearby
rear gardens.
To my mind
the garden is not derelict, it is looked after constantly; so how can it be
derelict? It is possibly eccentric and won’t appeal to everyone, but why should it?
It’s not easily seen from outside so why should anyone else be interested? The victims
are convinced there is a connection with those constantly critical letters in the local press.
Something else Bexley council seems unwilling to take into consideration is the
victim’s diagnosed Asperger Syndrome; for that of course no help is forthcoming
from Bexley council. Another indication of Bexley council’s perversity is that
they have granted planning permission for a traditional brick built extension to
their victims’ house. Negotiations are going on with a builder now. For that the
second-hand outbuildings closest to the existing
house are coming down anyway. Why can’t Bexley council wait? Why does it take
sides with those who assault ladies old enough to have a free bus pass? Maybe
after today’s visit we will know a little more.
Photo
feature.