Woman ordered to tear down £170k two-story extension built for disabled daughter by council
A mother who built a two-storey building for her disabled daughter has been ordered to either tear it all down or make changes to comply with council demands within six months.
Clair Birch, 59, spent a massive £170,000 on the annexe in her back garden in Worcester but did so without any planning permission.
Neighbours have been left enraged by the 'eyesore', which has appeared just metres from their home and are demanding change.
One resident, who did not wish to be named, said: "I'm not sure how on earth they thought they could get away with throwing up that eyesore.
Advert
"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."
However, Clair argues that the building is not a detached property.
She previously said: “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."
Another neighbour, who also wished to remain anonymous, added: “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."
“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.
They continued: "It’s like a bungalow now. 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."
Clair believes the correct planning information was submitted
Clair believes that the correct paperwork was submitted by the builders she hired to construct the building before it was built.
Speaking at the time, 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."
Planning application for a one-bedroom annexe, replacing an existing garage and outbuilding, were retrospectively submitted on March 6, 2025.
Worcester City Council refused it in November 2025 and a further appeal three months later in February.
Clair was given six months to demolish the construction or make changes so the building complies with demands. Another appeal was made to extend that time frame to 18 months but was rejected.
The Planning Inspectorate deemed six months adequate time for the work to be carried out, giving her a deadline of February 2027.
Clair took another swipe at her neighbours
Clair did not comment further on the matter when approached this week, but at the time explained why she had got the annexe built and claimed her 'snotty' neighbours were informed.
“I’m left with a building my disabled daughter is no longer able to use. She wants her independence," she said.
“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."
She then claimed the building hasn't led to much change to what was previously in its place.
She continued: "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."
Another anonymous 'fed up' neighbour claims the construction overhangs onto their land and the building process caused damage on their property.
Planning inspector Sarah Hanson said in her report that the development was 'unacceptable on planning merits.'
Worcester City Council refused to comment any further when approached.
Daniel Murphy