A home owner who built a “shed” for a “hot tub” without planning permission could face action from a council after councillors feared it could lead to a “free for all.”

They refused a recommendation to take no further action against the resident during a meeting, which heard there had been complaints from neighbours.  Two timber outbuildings, and a two metre-high fence, were erected by the owner of 29 East Kilbride Road, Busby, who was ordered to submit a retrospective application by East Renfrewshire Council in June.

No application has been received but planners recommended no further action should be taken as the buildings are not “out of character” with the area.

However, councillors on the planning committee rejected the request. Councillor Andrew Morrison, Conservative, said it could give residents the “green light” to view planning permission as “an optional extra.”

A council official said the development had been described as a “shed or a building to house a hot tub.”

There have been complaints from neighbours, he added.

Plans were submitted in March, after a request from planners, but were withdrawn the next day. Officials reported the “landowner wrongly believed planning permission was not required.”

In June, councillors agreed to issue a formal notice to the owner to submit a retrospective application, but they have not complied.

Officials said failure to submit a retrospective application “does not mean the planning service is required to serve an enforcement notice to seek removal of the structures.”

Guidance from the Scottish Government states councils should “consider whether any breach of control would unacceptably affect either public amenity.”

Planners decided the buildings would not be “out of character with the residential use of the site and would not give rise to significant additional noise and disturbance.” They added the development is “considered to be acceptable in appearance.”

Councillor Annette Ireland, SNP, believed the “development absolutely does affect the public amenity in the neighbouring properties”. “I have never known anyone refuse to put in a planning application and say they just don’t think they should,” she added.

Councillor Paul Edlin, Conservative, said the owner had “effectively ignored everything you have done.”

“I cannot see any justification for allowing these buildings to remain as they are,” he said, adding it could lead to “a free for all” with residents deciding not to apply for planning permission.

Councillor Morrison said he had “some sympathy” with the recommendation from officials, however he moved that it was not accepted.

“The council is facing tight budgets, you are tight in terms of manpower, but I actually think the elected members would be doing you a disservice by going for that.  “I think we’d be giving you vastly more work in future years because, as Councillor Edlin said, it gives a green light to other people to consider planning as an optional extra, rather than a legal requirement which people should comply with.”

Officials will now produce a report for the committee on “options to take this forward.”