Owner of ridiculed extension applies to planners
THE owner of an under-investigation and ridiculed home extension has now submitted a planning application for the project.
A planning application listed by South Derbyshire District Council seeks permission for a two-storey rear extension for the Coppice Side, Swadlincote property, which is already well under way.
The owner of the property, who did not wish to be identified when speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, had said he had begun work on the project in June.
However, his planning application to the district council, filed after an investigation was started by the authority and the project’s online ridicule, says work on the project started in October 2019.
He is seeking to build a rear extension over the existing kitchen area with changes to the downstairs layout to form a new groundfloor toilet.
The first floor of the extension would contain an enlarged bedroom to the rear of the house with an additional bathroom, while two further bedrooms (totalling four in the property) would be created within the roof space along with new roof-lights.
The application, with designs from Indigo Architecture, details that the extension is currently built out of “cementitious render, concrete blockwork and brickwork” and would be finished with “render to match existing and slate hanging to match the roof ”.
Double-glazed windows and doors would complete the scheme, the application says.
Designs from Indigo Architecture show the rear extension would include a balustrade (small balcony areas with a metal barrier) for both the first floor and second floor extensions.
The home in Coppice Side, Swadlincote, has been heavily criticised due to the nature of a twostorey extension built to the rear of the property. Comments on social media have compared the second floor extension to a lookout post; a pigeon coop; a base to shoot clay pigeons from; dubbed it the “eighth wonder of the world”; a “swanky roof bar”; a gun turret; a bird watching hide; and a prison guard tower.
When the LDRS spoke to the owner in October, he said those criticising his house extension should wait until they see the finished design.
He told the LDRS: “It is allowed under permitted development but I have stopped work for now until I hear back from the council. I have just stopped working and it just depends on the planning now.” “I think it is unfair for people to comment on it before it is finished. If they have a look at the architectural designs they’ll see for themselves,” he said.
The homeowner, who has lived at the property for two years after moving from Birmingham, said the designs had been sent to the district council.
He said: “It is unfair to judge until it is complete and I have tried not to look at the comments about it, but I have been told about them.
“The other side of it is that out of the people making comments a lot of the people probably live in council houses.”
Ward councillor Mick Mulgrew said the extension was “very dangerous”, “looks like a bad DIY job” and was “every bit as bad as everyone says it is”.
A district council spokesperson had said: “The council has received concerns about this structure and the council’s planning enforcement team is investigating if planning permission is needed or whether the works benefit from legal rights afforded to developers.”
The first floor extension appears to have been built out of breeze blocks, with a small double-glazed window. Brickwork beneath the first floor extension appears to be loose and a number of different building block types have been used to build the extra level to the rear of the home.
The second floor also appears to contain a double-glazed window which has been wedged between two wooden panels.
The council has received concerns about this structure and the council’s planning enforcement team is investigating. Spokesman