A WOMAN was horrified after her neighbour’s monstrosity extension was approved without asking her.
Lorraine Eaddie was shocked by the eyesore looming over her property despite promises by the council that it would be “barely visible”
Lorraine and other residents did not object to the housing extension because they were promised it would be obscured by trees and shrubs by City of York Council.
Sy het gese: “Significant neighbour amenity issues have certainly arisen. It’s a monstrosity.”
The council failed to notice the planning application for the hulking wooden addition said the trees along the shared boundary with neighbours would be chopped down, berigte Metro.
When finished the construction will be nearly 23ft wide and 15ft tall.
A council planning officer’s report had previously stated: “It will be very well screened by trees and shrubs and will not harm the visual amenity of the existing dwelling, or immediate surrounding area.
“The proposal was viewed from the rear garden and the occupier has no objections to the proposal.
“The degree of screening on the shared boundary of her property (and other adjoining properties) means the structure will barely be visible. In consequence, no significant neighbour amenity issues arise.”
Lorraine added she had received an email from enforcement officer Paul Chadwick saying the dimensions of the building were in accordance with the approved plan, and there were no conditions the trees should remain.
Most read in Property
She then had an email from principal development management officer Simon Glazier which stated that the extension was not in breach of planning permission despite the trees being removed.
Hy het gesê: “It is acknowledged that the officer report makes reference to the degree of screening on the shared boundary, and states that as a result, the structure would barely be visible.
“Clearly, the reference on the application form to the trees being removed was overlooked by the case officer, for which I apologise.
“Egter, the report does not state that the application would have been refused had there been no screening in place, and in the absence of a condition requiring the trees to remain, the development is not in breach of the planning permission.”
A council spokesperson said: “We are aware of the complaint in question and are currently in dialogue with the complainant.”
The resident building the garden room has not commented in reports about the neighbours’ outrage.