Neighbour row erupts after woman forced to tear down £170k ‘detached house’ | UK | News

A Worcester homeowner who spent £170,000 building what he believed was an allowable two-storey extension for his disabled daughter now faces the prospect of demolishing the entire structure after Worcester City Council refused retrospective planning permission.

Clair Birch, 58, started work earlier this year after receiving approval to replace her existing garage with a modest one-bedroom annex to give her daughter more independence. Neighbors say instead a detached “eyesore” structure resembling a detached bungalow has quickly gone up, shocking residents and prompting a number of complaints to the council.

Residents living near the semi-detached house claim that the outbuilding bears no resemblance to the plans they were shown. While many say its size, height and location make it feel like a completely separate home, some accuse Birch of building on neighboring land and invading privacy.

A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said: “We just call it the big house. They demolished it in a short time. I thought they were going to rebuild the garage, but they just kept going. They fenced everything in and turned it into a separate property. Now it’s like a bungalow.”

The same resident claimed the development extends onto adjacent land and was at one stage referred to as an Airbnb in planning documents.

Another neighbor whose property borders the building said it was shading their garden and causing flooding problems.

They said: “They built on my land and damaged some of my property. The sewer pipes release all the water to my side. It was supposed to be connected to the old garage, but it is a separate residence with its own mailbox.”

Others criticized the scale and style of the building, arguing that it did not match the character of the surrounding houses and that it allowed views directly into neighboring gardens.

Ms Birch said she relied entirely on a planning firm and believed the correct documents were submitted months ago. He said he was shocked to learn the application had been mishandled.

“My planner is pretty much screwed,” she said. “He put it as Airbnb in an application, then he did this. I built this building in good faith. I thought I had the relevant permits since June.”

Birch, who said she grew up on the property and never intended to cause a disturbance, explained that her daughter’s needs were at the heart of the building, including the decision to add a second floor due to her daughter’s phobia of sleeping on the ground floor.

“That building was built to meet my daughter’s needs. I was left with a building that my disabled daughter could no longer use. She wants her independence.”

He also rejected claims that the structure was too large, claiming it replaced a “massive” garage, woodshed and outdoor toilet that previously occupied the space.

Worcester City Council formally denied the retroactive application on Nov. 5, concluding that the structure functioned as a single-family residence rather than an outbuilding.

In its decision announcement, the council said the building’s height, scale and proximity created a “visually dominant and imposing structure” that was detrimental to residents’ views and privacy. He added that the structure lacked “visual harmony” with the site and did not display any “clear functional or physical dependency” on the main building, which is a key requirement for an annexe.

The authority said it had acted “positively and proactively” and explained its reasons for refusing to give the applicant the opportunity to review the proposal. He declined to comment further when approached.

If Birch can’t reach a compromise or get the permit revised, he could be ordered to completely dismantle the two-story structure; which is a devastating prospect after investing £170,000.

He said his situation was made worse by what he called “snotty neighbours” who claimed he was “making life hell”.

With tensions rising and the future of the building uncertain, Birch added that he was still waiting for clarity from the planning consultant he used:

“I’m left without a shovel. I don’t know what was delivered and what wasn’t.”