A GRAYS householder faces having to rip up hardstanding, a wall and a fence put in place to protect his home from a possible landslip.

The work was also carried out to improve the look of the immediate area around the home, though opinions vary on that.

Planning officers on Thurrock Council have reviewed a retrospective planning application for work carried out adjacent to 7 Blackmore Close.

The applicant, Mr Teodor Marian Copilusi, had carried out the work which including moving a garden shed and creating a hard standing area on his land. In a submission to the council the work was justified because of 'health and safety reasons'.

Though some neighbours have complained about the work, the council's own investigations conclude: "Given the siting of the erected picket fencing, levelled off, hard landscaped area and the re-location of the existing shed in relation to surrounding neighbouring dwellings, it is considered that it has not resulted in any significant impact upon neighbours in terms of a loss of light, privacy or by having an overbearing impact.

The area Mr Copilusi has created.

"Whilst change of use of the amenity land located to the bottom of the quarry bank has resulted in additional residential curtilage that has resulted in high level views, it is considered that this change of use does not result in such a significant loss of neighbour amenity by way of overlooking and loss of privacy as to warrant recommending refusal for this reason."

However, some neighbours dispute that. They say the work has caused damage to outbuildings and rear gardens of properties located within Allenby Crescent which is on land adjacent, but significantly higher, than Blackmore Close.

They have have alleged that the work undertaken by Mr Copilusi has led to the removal of trees and materials located at the bottom of the quarry bank that has resulted in land movement, that has, in turn caused damage. But the council reports 'no evidence' has been submitted alongside the neighbour comments.

The council called in an expert on landscape, arboriculture and ecology, Steve Plumb, who says: "The site is part of the former quarry bank which forms the northern boundary with properties on Blackmore Close.

"It contains a mix of sycamore and elm growing on the steep bank. The shade they cast, the steep gradients and shallow soils means that there is little grass or other vegetation growing on the bank. This is what contributes to the occasional erosion on the bank.

"At the time of the survey it was noted that some of the small elms were dead or dying as a result of Dutch Elm Disease. New trees had been planted close to the bottom of the slope.

"Ideally the applicant should try establishing grass or similar vegetation on the bank to help bind the soil to stop it washing onto the garden area over time. However, I appreciate that it would be hard to establish due to the thin soils and gradient.

"The works that have been carried out to date do not cause any adverse landscape or visual effects and I have no objection to the works that have been carried out. I would not require a landscape condition due to the scale of the works that have been undertaken."

Despite that advice and the defence of his work by Mr Copilusi, the council's officers have rejected his application.

In a notice informing Mr Copilusi of the rejection they say: "The change of use of amenity land to residential curtilage along with the associated development that has occurred, (including the levelling off the ground levels, creation of hard landscaping, surfacing, fencing and the erection of the shed,) by virtue of the raised ground levels and siting of the private garden area northwards, remote from the existing dwelling and yet within the full view of the public realm in Blackmore Close, appears wholly at odds with the existing pattern of development, leads to a loss of privacy for the occupiers of the application site when using the area, and is thereby harmful to the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and the locality.

The council adds: "The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing with the Applicant/Agent. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible."

Enforcement action may now take place.