Clair Birch, 59, from Worcester, has six months to demolish or modify a £170,000 two-storey annexe built in her back garden for her disabled daughter, after the Planning Inspectorate rejected her final appeal.
The structure, erected behind her semi-detached home, was meant to allow her daughter to live independently. But neighbours complained the building stood just metres from their properties and had been built without planning permission.
Worcester City Council issued an enforcement notice, and a retrospective planning application was rejected last November. An appeal against that decision was dismissed on February 16. A separate appeal seeking 18 months to comply was heard on August 12, but inspector Sarah Hanson ruled that six months was sufficient.
What happens next
Birch now faces a deadline of next February to either remove the annexe entirely or alter it to meet the council's requirements. The structure replaced an existing garage and outbuilding, and plans for a one-bedroom annexe were retrospectively lodged on March 6 last year.
The property, which Birch said she was born in, has been at the centre of a dispute with neighbours. One neighbour, who asked not to be named, said the building overhangs his property and caused damage that remains unfixed. He said: "It's not fit how she built that building anyway. It is right on the line and it overhangs my property."
The neighbour added: "A lot of the damage on my property is still not fixed. There was a pebble decorative bit straight from the garage to the top of my drive. It had a little supporting wall. They took all the pebbles out and dug it up."
Birch's defence
Birch previously said she believed all the correct paperwork had been submitted, after spending £170,000 on construction. She 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 appear to have submitted the wrong info and left me without a paddle."
She added: "I've done this building in good faith and thought since June I had the relevant permissions. I'm left with a building my disabled daughter is no longer able to use. She wants her independence."
Birch explained the design was tailored to her daughter's needs: "She has 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."
She also dismissed claims the annexe was oversized, saying: "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. I was born in this house, do you really think I'd want to ruin this?"
Birch noted the annexe lacks its own utilities and is linked to the main house, arguing: "It hasn't got its own utilities. How is that a separate dwelling? It's linked to the house."
Inspector's ruling
Inspector Sarah Hanson concluded in her report that personal circumstances do not override planning failures. She wrote: "While I acknowledge the appellant's concerns regarding their daughter's accommodation needs, those personal circumstances do not alter the fact the development has been found unacceptable on its planning merits."
She added: "The compliance period is intended to provide a reasonable opportunity to make the necessary arrangements and carry out the required works, it also provides the appellant with time to explore whether some other form of development might be considered more acceptable by the council."
Hanson noted the steps required are straightforward: "The steps required by the notice are straightforward and comprise removal of the unauthorised building and the removal of resulting materials from the land. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate those works could not reasonably be undertaken within six months."
She also pointed out that the council could extend the deadline if needed, citing Section 173A(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Last year, other residents called the annexe an eyesore. One 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."
Birch refused to comment when contacted this week. Worcester City Council declined to provide additional comment. The enforcement notice requires compliance by February, and failure to act could lead to further legal action.
