JUST as the rules say, the Landon family should have applied for planning permission for the rooftop garden they created on top of the garage behind their home and fish and chip shop in East Lancashire.

But when they belatedly did, councillors refused consent following two complaints from neighbours that the garden overlooked their property and that they would suffer a loss of privacy.

Yet , the case is not so straightforward.

Indeed, it is an exceptional and unique one.

For the Landons spent £1,500 building the garden at their Oswaldtwistle home and shop so that their three-year-old handicapped daughter, Millie, could have somewhere safe to play.

She suffers from cerebral palsy and cannot walk properly. And her garden is a sanctuary away from the dangers of the nearby main road where her parents know that she can play in safety at times while they are busy running their shop.

It is then, far more than a garden -- it is an essential support, both for this little girl and her family. And many would give the Landons credit for their self-reliance in having created it at their own expense.

Why, then, were such considerations not taken into account when they applied for planning permission?

We are told that no information was given to the planning committee about Millie's personal circumstances -- and that had they been made aware of them, there is no telling whether it would have made any difference to the decision to refuse consent.

But now the committee are aware of the situation and now that, according to neighbours, the garden is not an intrusion on their lives and privacy -- a fact that the Landons are seeking to prove with a petition they have started -- might not this decision be successfully appealed against?

Rules may be rules, but they should have room for compassion too.