AN ARCHITECT says a couple may decide not to move into their ‘dream’ retirement home at a Victorian terrace in Handbridge because of comments by neighbours.
Paul Doughty, senior partner at Wirral-based SDA Architecture & Surveying, accepts some of the blame in the planning saga relating to ground floor and loft extensions at the rear of the 1884 Overleigh Road property within a conservation area.
Angry neighbours are furious planning consent was not initially sought and have described the new-look as ‘a monstrosity’.
But Mr Doughty, whose firm is acting as planning agents for homeowners Andy and Debbie Dear, alleges some of the remarks aimed at the couple, who have not yet moved into the house, have been ‘nasty’.
He said: “The Dears are very upset about the situation because of things said by the neighbours and are wondering whether to even bother moving in to their dream retirement home.”
Mr Doughty said retrospective planning applications had now been lodged with Cheshire West and Chester Council for both the single storey ground floor and dormer extensions at the rear of the house.
He claimed advice had previously been given over the telephone that planning consent was not required but this was never confirmed in writing. Building work, thought to be costing in the order of £30,000, was continuing ‘at risk’.
It was understood the conservation area boundary impacted on the front of the house but not the rear.
He explained: “On that basis I advised Mr Dear that was the case and any work at the front had to be sympathetic but at the back it was just normal planning legislation.”
Mr Doughty, a Wirral Labour councillor, was ‘taken aback’ when a planning enforcement officer turned up on site and it was confirmed planning consent was required in both cases. He says the planning department advice was to separate the schemes into two applications because the ground floor extension was likely to be recommended for approval but the ‘more controversial’ loft extension was not.
He explained: “We and Mr and Mrs Dear have not set out to recklessly put up a dormer to upset everybody. It’s been a miscommunication through ourselves and the planning department.”
Mr Doughty said if the dormer extension was refused permission then an appeal was ‘probably the route’ to be taken. Accepting there may be an issue about who foots bill for any extra costs, including if the dormer had to be removed, he commented: “We are not blind to the fact that might be an issue.”
Simon Dangar, who owns the house next to the Dears’ property, has tweeted about what he calls ‘architectural vandalism’, but denies any of his comments have been personal. “Nobody has even met this couple,” said Mr Dangar, a financial advisor, from Farndon .
