Man ordered to tear down newbuild residence with wrap-around balcony and mega-basement after neighbour complained he ‘stole her privateness’

It was once a quintissential English walled garden – dotted with neat flowerbeds, framed by mature trees and with barely a hint of intrusion from the world beyond.

But Lucy Drake’s slice of idyll has been shattered by the intrusion of a very unwelcome addition next door.  

Now looming large behind her redbrick wall in a historic neighbourhood of Ipswich, is a towering new-build with a wrap around balcony.

The home – complete with mega basement, solar panels and a terrace built into the roof – was constructed by her neighbour Tony Cox after raizing his former property to the ground.

Mrs Drake is furious with her neighbour over she considers a deviation from the original plans submitted to the council. 

The Lib Dem councillor  did not object to plans submitted earlier to demolish a modest cottage and replace it with a larger, more modern property which featured a cinema room basement. 

Yet what emerged was a hulking building constructed so off-plan that a government planning inspector has now ruled it unlawful and ordered parts of  it complex to be torn down. 

Before and after pictures reveal how the property shattered the privacy she had once enjoyed. 

In official objections to the council, Mrs Drake said: ‘I enjoyed a very open and verdant rear outlook from my house and a high level of privacy in my garden, especially in the summer when the surrounding trees were in leaf.

‘The former cottage was a small, two storey dwelling set well back on the adjoining plot.

‘Views to and from its first floor windows were screened by intervening trees and it did not impinge on either my privacy or outlook.

‘I did not object to the proposals to demolish it and build a much larger house, much closer to my property, despite knowing that I would suffer some loss of outlook and privacy.

‘My views were based on an appraisal of the submitted plans in 2014 and the very similar ones submitted in June 2019.

‘Hence my surprise and alarm in the summer of 2022 when I realised what was being built varied in numerous respects from what I had been consulted on, and believed had been approved.’

Mrs Drake’s Grade-II listed home backs onto the protected Central Conservation Area, a protected stretch of land beside the 130-year-old Christchurch Park.

It was there in 2022 that Tony Cox commenced the construction of what was described as an ‘elegant contemporary architect-designed’ two storey home, featuring a basement with a cinema room.

Council planners took enforcement action this year after ruling that the build had deviated markedly from approved plans – including the addition of a full-length rear balcony and recessed roof terraces fitted with ‘crude’ black metal fins.

Ipswich Borough Council initially threatened to demolish the entire house after rejecting retrospective planning applications, later scaling back to demand Mr Cox strip the house back closer to that which had initially been approved.

An enforcement notice requiring Mr Cox to alter the unlawful elements of his project was upheld this month by the Planning Inspectorate.

Inspector Peter White ruled that the property had been built without valid planning permission due to conflicting 2019 plans.

He said that the building was effectively ‘unlawful’ because while drawings of a full-length balcony were submitted, floorplans for the project depicted a shorter balcony spanning only a third of the house.

He added that the first-floor balcony and attic roof terraces allowed clear views into Mrs Drake’s garden and home, causing substantial harm to her privacy.

Mr White said: ‘The first floor and attic roof balconies and the southern first floor window, if opened, would afford occupants views over neighbouring gardens and into neighbouring dwellings.

‘The balcony is a very prominent, and dominating, feature from No 22’s garden and its effects are very substantially greater than those of the previous dwelling.’

The inspector ordered that the first-floor balcony be reduced to a third of its current length and that a timber privacy screen be installed.

Mr Cox also has six months to fix shut a first-floor window, remove a glass panel and install gapped metal screens – known as louvres – over his attic roof balconies.

In council paperwork, Mr Cox denied intentional wrongdoing and laid blame with Ipswich Borough Council.

He insisted: ‘If there is an error it was the local planning authority (LPA) that made it.’

He added: ‘I am not an expert in planning, nor am I a lawyer, so I tried to adhere to the planning process by taking professional guidance and in particular by following what I was told.

‘I did this before and after receiving planning approval in 2019.

‘Despite this, and even while I was awaiting a reply to queries with the LPA, it issued an order to demolish the house that my partner and I are living in.

‘A house which has consumed a great deal of money in its construction, employed local builders and which is built to the latest energy standards and incorporates a number of features to benefit the environment for example solar generation and rain water harvesting.

‘A house which we built both for ourselves to live in, but also as investment in the housing stock of Ipswich for use by others after we are gone.’

The Planning Inspectorate said Mr Cox’s building did ‘not preserve or enhance the character’ of the area and harmed ‘the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers’.

Mrs Drake said the protracted ordeal had left her, and her neighbours, exhausted.

She said: ‘Had Mr Cox built his new house in accordance with the drawings he submitted with his application…there would have been no need for any enforcement investigations, two further planning applications, two enforcement notices, three appeals and an inordinate amount of time and effort spent and stress suffered by numerous parties.

‘Myself and my neighbours have been consistent in our position that the house as built has resulted in an unreasonable loss of privacy and outlook to our dwellings and gardens.’

When the Mail visited Mr Cox’s home this week, he declined to comment. 

Mrs Drake also declined to comment further beyond what she had already stated in her official objections.