Full story
Demolition order in Worcester
Clair Birch, 59, says she spent £170,000 on a two-storey annexe for her disabled daughter in the back garden of her semi-detached home in Worcester, but she now faces having to rip it down after losing a planning appeal.
“Clair Birch, 59, splashed out on the annexe in the back garden of her semi-detached home in Worcester”
Worcester City Council refused a retrospective application in November 2025 and a subsequent appeal was dismissed on February 16, with a separate appeal to extend the notice of compliance to 18 months heard on August 12.
After the Planning Inspectorate threw out the challenge, the inspectorate said six months is adequate time for her to carry out the work, and Birch now has until February 2027 to either reduce the annexe to rubble or amend it to comply with the council’s requirements.
Birch previously said she assumed all the correct paperwork had been submitted after forking out £170,000, telling SWNS: “I’m liaising with my builder and planner who apparently has submitted all the correct paperwork.”
Neighbours cite boundary and overhang
Neighbours said the annexe appeared just metres from their homes without any planning permission, and one neighbour told SWNS they now needed to take it down or “do as the council demands.”
That neighbour said: “It’s not fit how she built that building anyway. At the end of the day, how they’ve built it is right on the line and it overhangs my property.”
The Daily Mail said council officers deemed the structure “unacceptable” and reported that after losing an appeal Birch faces demolishing the building within six months or making changes to comply with Worcester City Council’s demands.
Birch said her daughter has a phobia of being on the ground floor at night, so “we put a second floor in,” and she argued the building was built to meet her daughter’s needs.
Inspector rejects 18-month delay
A separate appeal to extend the compliance period from six months to 18 months was heard on August 12, but planning inspector Sarah Hanson rejected the request.
““The appellant considers that six months is insufficient because the building currently accommodates their daughter, who has specific needs,” Hanson wrote.”
In her report, Hanson acknowledged the appellant’s concerns about her daughter’s accommodation but wrote: “The appellant considers that six months is insufficient because the building currently accommodates their daughter, who has specific needs,” and she said those circumstances did not change the planning decision.
Hanson also stated: “No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that those works could not reasonably be undertaken within six months,” and she described the enforcement steps as removing the unauthorised building and clearing the resulting materials.
The Times of India said Clair Birch has until February 2027 to comply with the enforcement notice, meaning she will either have to demolish the unauthorised annexe or make changes that satisfy Worcester City Council’s requirements.