My neighbour’s ‘ridiculous’ extension has ruined my garden – it feels like I’m buried beneath it

A MAN has slammed his neighbour’s “ridiculous” extension which is “sitting on top” of his own garden.

Derek Adams, from Paisley, Scotland, blasted the council for giving the green light to ongoing construction work next door.

SWNS

SWNS

The 67-year-old, who has lived in his home for nearly three decades, claimed the extension “dwarfs” his own property and invades his privacy.

He originally tried to stop Renfrewshire Council approving his neighbour’s planning application in 2021 – but to no avail.

To the homeowner’s fury, the single-storey structure, alongside a dormer conversion is going full steam ahead.

Derek, who lives with his wife and daughter, said: “As soon as we come out our back door, it’s effectively sitting on top of us.

“The original bungalow was sitting high, but it’s now sitting about four metres higher than it was.

“It’s just ridiculous. If you read the council’s requirements for a dormer, the first point is they must be ‘small, discrete additions which retain the character of the original roof’.

“This dormer in length is 13 to 14 metres. It’s hardly small and discrete.
“Another point is that they shouldn’t ‘dominate’ the roof.

“They’re effectively creating a new roof. It’s not really a dormer, they’re effectively adding a second storey. It’s over-developed.

“But I’m not trying to get to my neighbour, I went round and spoke to him about it. I’m trying to get to the council because of the mishandling of it.

“It’s not the neighbour’s fault.”

The civil engineer also insists the dormer is actually bigger than originally planned.

He believes a second application submitted by his neighbour, “shouldn’t have been approved”.

The changes were “to various openings on the extension and rear dormer” – but there were no specific measurements mentioned.

Derek claimed this was an “ignored” oversight and “nobody picked it up”.

“What I realised was, between revision A (original planning application) and revision B (NMV) there was actually an increase in the length of the dormer,” he explained.

“My understanding is that shouldn’t have been approved under an NMV request and we should have been notified specifically, but it was ignored. Nobody picked it up.

“It was showing on the architect’s section, but it wasn’t covered at all in any of the paperwork or the NMV description or approvals.

“I have an e-mail from the case officer confirming that the extension of that dormer along my face of the building wasn’t included in the NMV, so reading between the lines, it has been missed. The whole thing is a mess.”

Despite repeated pleas to the council to inspect the dormer, officials are yet to visit his property.

“I told them; “come out and I’ll point out where the errors are” and they haven’t come out,” he said.

A spokesperson for Renfrewshire Council said: “Our officers have visited the property and consider the development underway to be in accordance with the approved plans for the alterations to the house.

“The final design for the works was subject to a number of negotiated changes, which is often the case with applications for domestic properties.

“While the depth of the dormer has increased slightly under the NMV, it is minor in comparison to the dormer as a whole and does not raise any overshadowing or overlooking issues.

“Any request for a NMV is at the discretion of the planning authority and, in this case, we believe the changes to the original proposed design for the depth of the dormer were sufficiently minor to grant the request.”

SWNS