• See more Daily Mail on Google - save us as a Preferred Source

A mother who spent £170,000 building an annexe for her disabled daughter has been ordered to demolish the structure after council officers deemed it 'unacceptable'.

Clair Birch, 59, spent thousands on the two-storey building in the back garden of her semi-detached home in Worcester to help her daughter live more independently.

But furious neighbours claim the structure appeared just metres away from their homes without planning permission.

After losing an appeal, Clair now faces having to demolish the building within six months or make changes to comply with Worcester City Council's demands.

Plans for a one-bedroom annexe, which replaced an existing garage and outbuilding at the property, were retrospectively submitted on March 6 last year.

But Worcester City Council refused the application in November 2025 and a subsequent appeal was dismissed on February 16.

A separate appeal to extend the notice of compliance to 18 months was heard on August 12.

But the Planning Inspectorate threw out the challenge, claiming six months is adequate time for her to carry out the work.

Homeowner Clair Birch who spent £170,000 building an annexe for her disabled daughter (right) has been ordered to demolish the structure after council officers deemed it 'unacceptable'

One neighbour complained that the annexe was like a 'building within a building' and is positioned right against the fence line

Clair previously said she assumed all the correct paperwork had been submitted after spending £170,000.

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.

'I'm left with a building my disabled daughter is no longer able to use. She wants her independence.

'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.

'My neighbours were fully aware of this and 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.

'I've lost £70,000, 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.'

After the ruling by the Planning Inspectorate, Clair now has until February 2027 to either reduce the annexe to rubble or amend it to comply with the council's requirements.

Clair would not comment any further when approached this week.

Ms Birch has been told to make changes or demolish the building after losing an appeal against Worcester City Council

One neighbour, who wished to remain anonymous, said she now needed to take it down or 'do as the council demands'.

He said: 'It's not fit [for purpose]. At the end of the day, how they've built it is right on the line and it overhangs my property.

'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.

'I paid my money to a property line surveyor that showed the boundary line was ours.

'Just take it down or do as the council demands.

'It is almost like another property up there, how they've fenced it off and kept it separate from the main building.

'It has its own separate garden, it's like a building inside another building.'

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.

'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.'

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 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.

'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.'

Planning inspector Sarah Hanson concluded in her report: 'The appellant considers that six months is insufficient because the building currently accommodates their daughter, who has specific needs, details of which were provided with the appeal submissions.

'It is argued that compliance within six months would cause disruption to her living arrangements and that a period of 18 months should be allowed to secure alternative suitably adapted accommodation or to regularise the development.

'While I acknowledge the appellant's concerns regarding their daughter's accommodation needs, those personal circumstances do not alter the fact that the development has been found unacceptable on its planning merits.

'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.

'Moreover, 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 that those works could not reasonably be undertaken within six months.

'Accordingly, I am satisfied that a period of six months provides sufficient time to comply with the requirements of the notice.

'Should the appellant need more time, Section 173A(1)(b) provides the local planning authority with the ability to extend the time for compliance with the notice, if considered necessary.'

Worcester City Council declined to comment further.