Wakefield Council has issued an enforcement notice ordering a Stanley homeowner to remove a four-foot resin gorilla mounted to the front of her terraced house after concluding the figure is "out of character" with the surrounding area.
The homeowner, Adele Teale, 58, has appealed the July 10 notice, meaning it has not yet taken effect. The council said the structure is not a "minor decorative feature", is a "prominent, eye-catching structure" on a residential street and, because no planning application was submitted, an assessment of whether any benefits outweigh harm to the greenbelt and landscape could not be made.
Teale, who works for Leeds City Council's passenger travel service and lives with her husband and son, said she bought the statue in 2005 from a pet supplies shop, had it outside a previous home in Belle Isle, Leeds, for about 15 years and later repurchased it for £600 last August after moving to Stanley. She re-erected the figure on a wooden plinth between two upstairs windows in December.
Teale told reporters that neighbours raised no concerns, that passersby and children stop to look at the figure she calls "Caesar", and that she considers it a garden ornament. She said the figure is securely fastened and questioned the council's description of it as "structural". "I just don't understand what the issue is," she said.
In a statement, Joe Jenkinson, Wakefield Council's service director for planning, transportation and strategic highways, said the authority appreciated that not everyone would agree with its view but that under planning rules the installation required permission. The council's enforcement notice said the statue "has caused harm to the greenbelt" and "has made a negative effect on the area's landscape."
The dispute began after Teale received a May 27 letter from Wakefield Council planning services following a complaint that an "animal structure" had been built on her property. The letter advised she contact the council to determine whether a retrospective planning application was required. When the enforcement notice was issued in July, Teale appealed on Aug. 11.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local planning authorities can require retrospective permission for works and may issue enforcement notices where they consider development unauthorised or harmful to local amenity. The council said the enforcement notice will only take effect if the appeal is dismissed.
The case highlights tensions between individual property displays and local planning controls. The outcome will depend on the pending appeal or any retrospective planning application that might be lodged and assessed against planning rules and local policy.