Clair Birch spent £170,000 on the Worcester property she says was built for her disabled daughter, but neighbours claim it extends onto their land
18:40, 23 Nov 2025
A mum has been ordered to tear down a £170,000 garden extension, after neighbours complained to the council about the "eyesore"
Clair Birch, 58, had initially requested permission for a single-bedroom annexe to replace an existing garage at their semi-detached home in Worcester.
However, neighbours were left gobsmacked when a standalone "eyesore" property resembling an "extended bungalow" was erected in the back garden instead.
Worcester City Council has now rejected retrospective planning permission, declaring the "overbearing" construction resembles a self-contained dwelling rather than an annexe.
Clair now faces demolishing the property - which she claims she constructed for her disabled daughter - unless a solution is reached, and has slammed "snotty neighbours" for "making life hell".
READ MORE: Neighbours thought they were living next door to ordinary man - they had no ideaREAD MORE: 'I came up with genius way to shut my neighbours up when they're being too loud'
Yet locals who lodged complaints argue the imposing structure encroaches onto their land, violates privacy and clashes with the character of surrounding properties.
They also revealed that at one stage the planned extension was even advertised as a potential AirBnB property on the online application.
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.
"They've actually 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 revealed how the massive construction casts a shadow over their home and also claimed it triggers flooding problems.
They 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 has since pointed the finger at a property firm she hired to lodge the plans and says she was led to believe they had filed all the proper documentation.
After shelling out a whopping £170,000 on the construction, she claims she's still completely in the dark about what paperwork has been lodged and what hasn't.
Clair said: "I'm liaising with my builder and planner who apparently has submitted all the correct paperwork. The planning application was put in March but they appear to have submitted the wrong info and left me 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 is no longer able to 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 dodgy 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 knocked back the proposals on November 5, stating the dimensions and magnitude of the construction lacked 'visual cohesion' with the neighbouring area. Officials added 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.