FURIOUS Tricia Bollesty has been ordered to tear up her block paving drive - or face a £20,000 penalty.

The Pennington Avenue resident, who paid £3,500 for the work done last year, claims she has been ordered by Wigan Council to rip it up by May 6 because it is not in keeping with the area.

She has also been told to remove a wooden fence which is shielding growing shrubs from splashes by the numerous Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust trucks which daily use the unadopted road to reach their depot at Pennington Park.

Tricia is livid that she has to return part of her drive to the mess it was previously.

She said: “It is so annoying, it is like going back to Victorian squalor.

“I have been told I have to remove the paving which is not in keeping with the area of mud, slutch and pot holes. Where do I buy them from?

“How ludicrous this council action seems when I am trying to do what is in my deeds - to maintain my half of the highway to a standard as to not cause injury to anyone. As it is the entrance to a public park I thought I was doing my best as I am responsible for outside my property.

“I had the work done after I had a new water main to protect it from the waggons which have made the access road dangerous, make it easier for people getting access to the house and to the park. It’s just madness. It’s covered in mud anyway so you can’t see it.”

“More council wagons than ever are using the road and I can’t understand why they want me to put my drive back to mud and puddles.

“I was told that I needed retrospective planning permission after I’d done the drive and it cost £330 to apply, but it was turned down. I was advised to appeal against the decision but still it was refused. I am at the end of my tether. It seems like madness to me.”

The avenue was made a conservation area in January, but the work was completed before then.

A council spokesman said: “This application concerns an extension to the driveway which has encroached onto an unadopted road. We did receive complaints from other residents regarding this and advised that the occupier either needed to remove the work or submit a retrospective planning application.

“The application was duly considered and rejected on the grounds that the nature of these works was not in-keeping with the character of the conservation area.

“The applicant duly appealed to the Secretary of State, as she is fully entitled to do, but the appeal was dismissed.”