Couple Ordered to Demolish £80,000 Garden Annexe After Council Contradiction
Tracy and Paul Allen from Gillingham, Kent, have been instructed to either demolish their £80,000 garden annexe or undertake a £40,000 redesign, following a planning appeal loss. This devastating outcome stems from contradictory guidance provided by different departments within Medway Council.
Conflicting Council Instructions
The couple initially received full planning permission in 2019 to construct a 5.6-meter-tall single-story annexe at the rear of their long garden. However, during construction, building control officials—operating through the STG Partnership, a joint venture of four councils—advised that the approved location was too distant from the roadside for fire safety compliance. They explicitly instructed the Allens to move the structure forward by 10 meters.
"We just did what we thought was the right thing," Mrs. Allen explained. "They emailed us with options and told us what to do. At no point did they mention needing to return for fresh planning permission or what retrospective permission even meant."
Enforcement Notice and Failed Appeal
After completing the annexe in the new location, the couple received an enforcement notice in February 2024, alleging the building was positioned incorrectly. Despite submitting a retrospective planning application in 2022—which was approved with design modifications—the council claimed no remedial work occurred. The Allens' recent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was unsuccessful.
Inspector Ahsan Ghafoor ruled the annexe's current placement has a "materially harmful effect" on neighbors' living conditions, describing it as having an "over-dominant and over-towering effect." The required alterations include replacing the pitched roof, estimated to cost at least £40,000.
Devastating Personal Impact
The annexe was intended to provide accommodation for a disabled young person the couple cares for and to serve as future-proofing for their own needs, as both manage health issues like arthritis. "We're absolutely devastated—just the whole stress of it all," said Mrs. Allen, 58. "We probably spent about £80,000 building it, and we haven't even finished the interior."
She expressed frustration at the council's lack of internal communication: "We thought planning and building control were linked and would have some conversation. We had no knowledge they weren't." The couple, who run a charity supporting individuals with learning difficulties, emphasized they never intended to upset neighbors and were simply following official directives.
Council Response
Medway Council did not address the Allens' specific claims but stated in a release: "As the approved amendments to the design of the annexe were not made following the successful retrospective planning application, an enforcement notice was issued. The Planning Inspectorate has reviewed the appeal and found in favour of the council."
The case highlights significant procedural gaps between planning permissions and building control regulations, leaving homeowners vulnerable to costly errors despite following council advice.
