Mother faces demolishing £170,000 two-storey garden house for disabled daughter because she didn’t have permission

A homeowner who spent £170,000 building a two-storey detached house in his backyard is being forced to demolish it because he did not have planning permission.

Clair Birch, 58, had originally sought approval for a one-bedroom annexe to replace the existing garage at their semi-detached property so her disabled daughter could have some independence.

But neighbors said they were stunned by the erection of a detached ‘eyesore’ property resembling an ‘extended bungalow’ in a Worcester backyard.

The local council refused retrospective planning permission, saying the ‘overbearing’ building works resembled a detached house rather than an outbuilding.

Mrs Birch will have to demolish the property if a solution is not found and blame ‘snotty neighbours’ for ‘making her life hell’.

Residents complained that the stately structure invaded privacy and did not match the character of the surrounding houses.

One resident said the extension extended onto their property and caused damage, while another said the planned extension was at one point referred to as an Airbnb in the planning application.

The resident, who did not want to be named, added: ‘We just call it the ‘big house’, they demolished it in a short time.

One resident said the annex extended onto their property and caused damage, while another said it was referred to as an Airbnb at one point.

A neighbor claimed Mrs Birch ‘ran separate lines for water and electricity’, but the mother said the annexe (right) ‘did not have its own services’ and was ‘connected’ to her house (left).

‘An extension had been built at the rear of the semi, it also had a recliner and a small garage. I thought they were going to rebuild the garage but it just kept going.

‘They fenced it all off and made it a separate property, it actually stands alone. It’s like a bungalow now.

‘After I saw how big it was I complained and then more complaints started coming.

‘They actually built this place on the property next door. I know they built this on top of the common party wall without talking to their neighbours.’

The resident claimed Mrs Birch ‘ran separate lines for water and electricity’, but the mother said the annexe ‘did not have its own utilities’ and was ‘connected’ to her home.

The neighbor added: ‘I think they wanted to remove it as quickly as possible to avoid it being rejected.

‘Very big. It doesn’t even fit on the street. ‘From the windows you can see all the gardens from both sides, so there’s no privacy.’

Another resident said: ‘I’m not sure how they thought they could get away with throwing away this eyesore.

Ms Birch has since accused a property firm she instructed to submit plans of leaving her ‘without a shovel’

‘Who builds a detached house in their backyard without permission? This is such a barbaric thing.’

A third neighbor described how the new development dwarfed his property and claimed it was causing flooding.

They said, ‘They built construction on my land and damaged some of my property.’ A border investigator came and said he shouldn’t be there.

‘It was supposed to be connected to the old garage but to me it’s now a separate residence with a letterbox at the front door.

‘They installed toilet pipes and drainage pipes on my property, the rain gutters have no drains, so they all fall on my side.’

Ms Birch has since accused a property firm she instructed to submit her plans of leaving her ‘shodless’ and said she was under the impression they had submitted all the correct documentation.

After paying a total of £170,000 for the build, he claims he is still in the dark about what is and isn’t on offer.

Ms Birch said: ‘I have been in contact with my builder and planner who have apparently submitted all the paperwork correctly.

‘The planning application was submitted in March but they appear to have given incorrect information.

‘I built this building in good faith and thought I had the relevant permits since June.

‘I was left alone with a building that my disabled daughter could no longer use. He wants his independence.

‘He has a phobia of staying on the ground floor at night, so we put in the second floor.

‘That building was built to meet my daughter’s needs. Someone working in the department and my planner assured me that everything was fine.’

He said the building replaced a ‘huge’ garage, wooden shed and toilet and denied that the new structure was ‘huge’.

‘My planner sucked the hell out,’ she added. ‘He put it as Airbnb on an application, then did this.

‘I was born in this house, do you really think I would want to ruin it?’

Worcester City Council rejected the plans on November 5, saying the size and scale of the structure lacked ‘visual harmony’ with the surrounding area.

They added that the structure ‘shows no obvious functional or physical dependence on the main residence’.

The planning application said: ‘The overall height, scale and proximity of the annexe to adjacent boundaries results in a visually dominant and challenging structure.

‘The development results in an increased sense of enclosure and loss of view of neighboring gardens and has 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 to the proposal and determining the application in a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason for refusal and giving the applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether this could be remedied by a revision to the proposal.’

Worcester City Council declined further comment when approached.