Disgruntled neighbours are at war over claims that a resident has built a private drinking den in his garden without planning permission.
Company director Michael Bowe, 40, erected a sprawling summer house in the back garden, claiming in council documents that it was needed for ‘modern home working and flexible living’.
But neighbours allege the plush five-metre-long annexe in Marton-in-Cleveland, near Middlesbrough, looks more like a private bar than a home office.
In objections submitted to Middlesbrough Council, disgruntled neighbour Debby Allan wrote to officials: ‘We do not feel like the use of what this building is for is accurate.
‘It appears to be a bar and when used there have been unacceptable noise levels, as there is a lot of glass that echoes from the outside which causes disturbance to us.’
Council planners have now ordered the ‘overbearing’ and ‘oppressive’ summer house to be demolished after refusing a retrospective planning application.
The flat-roofed garden building, which measures 3.5m by 5m, was built just 20cm from a neighbour’s fence and stands nearly three metres tall.
Planning permission is typically required when a building taller than 2.5m is located within two metres of a boundary.
Disgruntled neighbours are at war over claims that a resident has built a private drinking den summer house (pictured) in his garden without planning permission
In planning documents, Ms Allan accused Mr Bowe, a co-director of Middlesbrough childcare agency Invested Childcare, of causing ‘great disruption’ and said the annexe was ‘not in character with existing properties’.
She added: ‘The work to this property has already been carried out in 2022 and 2024. It has caused great disruption, which has in turn caused us a lot of stress and impacted our mental health.
‘We work shifts including night shifts, the noise and disruption had meant we had to stay with relatives to rest in between.
‘We were unable to open our blinds in the living room due to the lack of privacy by the builders.’
Another neighbour also submitted complaints which claimed the annexe looms into view from her living room and dominates the garden, with its rear wall pressed up against Mr Bowe’s back fence.
Louise Finn claimed she had endured a loss of privacy and that a confrontation between the pair had caused ‘a huge amount of stress and anxiety’.
The concern, raised in the documents, read: ‘This property has been developed without planning permission and any consideration to properties involved.
‘I respectfully request that you reconsider the approval for this retrospective planning of the development, as it would have a negative impact on my property and health and well-being.’
The flat-roofed garden building, which measures 3.5m by 5m, was built just 20cm from a neighbour’s fence and stands nearly 3 metres tall. Planning permission is typically required when a building taller than 2.5m is located within two metres of a boundary
Another neighbour claimed in their submitted complaint that the annexe looms into view from her living room and dominates the garden, with its rear wall pressed up against Mr Bowe’s back fence
Town hall officials refused retrospective planning consent, despite accepting that the annexe was ‘not unattractive or of low quality in design terms’.
But it ruled the ‘significant overbearing’ development affects the ‘quality of life and living conditions’ of neighbours, and launched enforcement action.
Mr Bowe, who bought his four-bed detached home for £390,000 in 2020, is appealing the council’s order to raze the summer house, describing the planning permission refusal as ‘without merit’.
His planning consultants argue the summer house only marginally exceeds height limits due to its proximity to the boundary fence, and causes no actual harm to neighbouring properties.
They claim ‘careful consideration’ was given to its placement behind a neighbour’s garage, which they say ‘almost entirely screens it from view’.
The consultants said: ‘In the present case, the proposed summer house has been deliberately positioned behind the adjoining property’s garage, ensuring it is substantially screened from view and has no adverse effect on outlook, daylight, or privacy.’
Louise Finn claimed to council officials that she had endured a loss of privacy and that a confrontation between the pair had caused ‘a huge amount of stress and anxiety’
It said the summer house ‘remains well-screened by boundary fencing, free from overlooking openings, and is positioned to avoid shadowing or overbearing effects.
‘The design, while utilising a flat roof, does so in a low-profile and non-intrusive way.’
The planning inspectorate will make a decision on whether to uphold or overturn the council’s refusal later this year.
When approached at his home, Mr Bowe declined to comment, describing himself as a ‘private person’.
He said: ‘I don’t feel like I’ve done anything wrong.’
Comments are closed.