Clair Birch built a two-storey detached property in her garden without permission but Worcester City Council has now refused her retrospective planning application
Clair Birch’s home.
A Midland mum faces tearing down an extension at her home which was planned for her disabled daughter after neighbours complained.
Clair Birch, 58, initially sought approval for a one-bedroom annexe to replace an existing garage at her semi-detached property on Newtown Road, Worcester. But neighbours were left gobsmacked when a stand-alone “eyesore” resembling an “extended bungalow” was erected in the back garden instead.
Worcester City Council has since denied retrospective planning permission, saying the “overbearing” construction looked more like a self-contained house than an annexe. Clair now faces the prospect of having to demolish the property if a solution isn’t found.
READ MORE: Rapper Twista Cheese’s Insta rants after being jailed for flamethrower attack
One resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “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? It’s barmy. It looks like a bungalow which has been extended.
“It’s got two floors – its a second house. They threw it up in June but only found out later they hadn’t got permission.”
Another neighbour, who also wished to remain anonymous, added: “We simply call it ‘the big house’ – they knocked it up in no time.
“They had an extension built on the back of the semi, plus a lean-to and a small garage. I thought they were rebuilding the garage but it just kept on going.
“It’s a two-storey building. It’s probably about four times the size of what a standard garage is. They’ve fenced it all off into a separate property, it effectively stands alone. It’s like a bungalow now.
“They’ve cut the garden in half, they could effectively sell it as a separate property, too. I put a complaint in after seeing how big it was and then further complaints went in.
The back of Clair Birch’s house.
“They’ve built the place onto next-doors property. I know they built it onto the shared party wall without speaking to their neighbours. They’ve run separate lines down for water and power, which indicates it’ll have its own sources.
“It was listed as an Airbnb on the planning application at one point. I believe they wanted to get it up as quickly as possible to stop it being rejected.
“It is massive. It doesn’t even fit in with the street. From the windows you can see all the gardens from both sides, so there’s no privacy.”
Another resident said the new construction cast a shadow over his home and also alleged it led to flooding issues. The homeowner said: “They’ve built on my land and damaged a bit of my property. I had a boundary surveyor come in and they said it shouldn’t be there.
“It was supposed to be attached to the old garage, but to me this is now a separate dwelling with a letter box through the front door.
“They’ve put the toilet piping and drain pipes into my land, there’s no drain for the rain gutters, so it’s dropping all on my side.
“You build it to the correct boundary line and if you damage my property you should fix it.
“It doesn’t really suit the area and the roof top looks a bit funny.”
Clair blamed a property firm she hired to submit the plans, saying she believed it had submitted all the necessary documents.
After spending £170,000 on the construction, she said she was still unsure about what had been submitted and what had not.
Clair said: “I’m liaising with my builder and planner who apparently has submitted all the correct paperwork. 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.
“I’ve done this building in good faith and thought since June I have the relevant permissions. The first builder took me for £70,000 and left the property unstable.
“I’m left with a building my disabled daughter can no longer use. She wants her independence. She’s got a phobia of being on the ground floor at night, so we put a second floor in.
“That building was built to meet my daughter’s needs. I was assured by someone who works in the department and my planner that it was all good.
“My snotty neighbours were fully aware of this and they were told from the start. There was already a massive garage, a wood shed and a toilet. It was huge so we’ve not gone oversized with the building. It doesn’t look much different to the garage.
“My planner royally messed up. On one application he put it as an Airbnb, then he has done this. I was born in this house, do you really think I’d want to ruin this?”.
“I’ve lost £70k with the building, it’s just about my daughter having somewhere to live. They (neighbours) are making my life hell. It hasn’t got its own utilities. How is that a separate dwelling? It’s linked to the house.”
Worcester City Council rejected the proposals on November 5, saying the dimensions and scale of the construction lacked ‘visual harmony’ with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Officials said the structure “fails to demonstrate a clear functional or physical dependency on the main dwelling”. The planning submission stated: “The overall height, scale, and proximity of the annexe to adjoining boundaries result in a visually dominant and overbearing structure.
“The development leads to an increased sense of enclosure and loss of outlook from neighbouring gardens and results in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby residents.
“The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason for refusal, allowing the applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal.”
Worcester City Council declined to provide any additional comments when contacted.
Comments are closed.