A Worcester mother faces the heartbreaking prospect of demolishing a two-storey garden building constructed for her disabled daughter after council officials refused retrospective planning permission.
Neighbour complaints lead to council rejection
Clair Birch, 58, initially sought approval to replace an existing garage at her Newtown Road semi-detached property with a one-bedroom annexe for her daughter. However, neighbours expressed shock when what they described as a standalone "eyesore" resembling an "extended bungalow" appeared in her back garden instead.
One anonymous neighbour stated: "I'm not sure how on earth they thought they could get away with throwing up that eyesore. Who builds a detached house in their back garden without getting permission first?"
Another resident claimed the construction had caused flooding issues and damaged their property, saying: "They've built on my land and damaged a bit of my property. They've put the toilet piping and drain pipes into my land."
Council cites overbearing structure and visual impact
Worcester City Council rejected the application on November 5, stating the development lacked 'visual harmony' with the surrounding area. Planning documents described the structure as "visually dominant and overbearing" and noted it "fails to demonstrate a clear functional or physical dependency on the main dwelling".
The council's decision highlighted concerns about the building's height, scale, and proximity to neighbouring boundaries, which officials said resulted in "an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook from neighbouring gardens".
Mother blames planning firm for paperwork errors
Clair Birch, who has spent £170,000 on the construction, blamed a property firm she hired to handle the planning application. She explained: "The planning application was put in in March but they seem to have submitted the wrong info and left me up the creek without a paddle."
She revealed additional complications, including losing £70,000 to a previous builder who left the property unstable. More importantly, she emphasised the building's purpose: "That building was built to meet my daughter's needs. She wants her independence. She's got a phobia of being on the ground floor at night, so we put a second floor in."
Addressing neighbour concerns about separate utilities, Clair insisted: "It hasn't got its own utilities. How is that a separate dwelling? It's linked to the house."
The situation remains unresolved, with Clair potentially facing demolition costs unless a solution can be found with the local planning authority.
