“I live by 59ft-tall red Milton Keynes warehouse - I’m planning a remodel of our garden so we can’t see it”

An eyesore 59ft-tall bright red warehouse "blighting" Milton Keynes homes can't even be used due to a planning row.

Locals living in Great Holm have said the structure has been left in "limbo" after council officers ruled it can't be legally occupied until a landscaping dispute has been settled. They say they have been left to live in the shadow of the "traffic-light red" and grey 17.9m tall structure which was built in January.

The building, which measures at 11371 square metres, was built for Shurgard, the largest owner and operator of self-storage facilities in Europe on Watling Street in the city. But Milton Keynes City Council have now refused a retrospective planning application for the landscaping around the six-storey building.

The structure has now served an enforcement notice after its steel frame was built to its full six-storey height before greenery plans were approved. And residents have argued there had been limited consultation before original approval by a single Milton Keynes City Council officer under delegated powers in December 2024.

Richard Turner, 69, lives less than 100m away from the proposed self-storage facility with his wife Yvonne and said: "It is right on top of us so it feels like it follows you around. Every time we go out our front door, there's this 50ft red stripe right there. Recently, we've been pulling the blinds down so we can't see the top part.

"From a new buyer's point of view, if there were two properties - one with a giant red building nearby and one without - you're going to pick the one without. It reflects on the windows and cars have turned orange at certain points of the day. It's a monstrosity."

The first application for the facility was lodged in May 2023 which attracted more than 40 objections from residents and objections from the local parish council. In December 2023, a new application was lodged with the proposal of 1,631 native thickets and 257 native hedges to mitigate the surroundings. But many residents say they were not aware they had to re-object to the second application and the plans were approved in December 2024 by a single council officer.

Richard, who has lived in his five-bedroom detached home for 24 years, said he had objected to the first application but wasn't aware of a second one.

He added: "Developers can use the rules and regulations to their advantage whereas the general public don't have as much information about planning processes. We don't understand how a single person could have approved something like this."

In January 2026, construction of the building commenced above slab level without further landscaping approval, visible from Great Holm where the average house price is £270,000 to £345,000.

Jonathan Williams, 46, lodged an enforcement complaint with the council while other residents catalogued construction - including the use of a 60-metre crane.

Council officers opened an enforcement investigation while Shurgard submitted a retrospective application for landscaping conditions.

But the new plan outraged residents after the original 10.5m noise buffer was halved and plans to plant 1,631 trees and shrubs were reduced by 76 per cent - to just 390.

Last week, councillors refused the new application on the grounds the proposed landscaping was "insufficient in the context of the site and the character and appearance of the area." The officers’ report also stated that there were "inconsistencies shown on the submitted plans when compared to the original application."

Jonathan, who has lived in his four-bedroom detached home for six years, can see the structure from his front windows and has been campaigning for change.

He said: "When the application was resubmitted with some modifications, call me a bit suspicious but I don't think many residents knew they had to object all over again.

"When the frame went on, it became apparent how huge and horrible this building is. The building would be less severe if it had a neutral, graceful colour. Other warehouse buildings at least blend into the sky. It is remarkable that a traffic-light red has been approved. It is too late now - we can only mitigate it and right now it's in limbo."

Jonathan said he didn't believe planning processes are transparent enough for residents while developers and property agencies are more knowledge of the system.

He added: "They put a plan in, it gets objections so they withdraw it, and put it back in - it's like they're playing a game to see if anyone notices.

"It used to be just trees and greenery here but now we have a blot on landscape. It's an absolute shame and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Milton Keynes was built to be green."

David Wardell, 80, has lived in the area for 26 years and said from his rear garden, all he could see was "red".

He explained: "We've started to plan to remodel our garden so that we don't have line of sight of the building. It's forced us to do something like that. It's a big looming red thing and we're living in the shadow of it.

"The building should have not been approved in the first place. it shouldn't have been built so high and it should have been set much further back on the site. Then they'd have more places to put screening trees and greenery in front of it. There's not enough room there to put any real landscaping there whatsoever.

"I certainly wished our councillors had engaged with us. We believe there was only a few people who got notice of the second planning application. The founding fathers of Milton Keynes would be appalled."

The self-storage building cannot lawfully be occupied until a compliant landscaping scheme is approved. But on 30 April, residents said new lettering branding the Shurgard name was erected on the side of the building despite the enforcement notice. The developer has six months to appeal or can submit a revised scheme.

Loughton and Great Holm Parish Council said they were aware of residents' concerns and had objected to the original planning application.

A spokesperson said: "We continue to have questions regarding aspects of both the decision-making process and the development itself."

Milton Keynes City Council and Shurgard were contacted for comment.