Row over Bristol bungalow plans

A Hanham woman has criticised South Gloucestershire Council for agreeing plans allowing a property developer to build a 'huge bungalow' in her next door neighbour's back garden.

Mary Osborne, 53, says she had expected an old outbuilding in her neighbour's garden in the High Street to be converted into a one-bedroom flat.

But she was stunned when builders knocked the outbuilding down and began building a two-bedroom bungalow, with its windows and front door facing her garden.

Although the bungalow later won retrospective planning permission from South Gloucestershire Council, she says the plans submitted by Anthony Milton, of Downend, should never have been granted.

Under the plans the Victorian property, a former off-licence, is being transformed to create two homes.

Ms Osborne said: "When I first saw the plans in August or September, I thought 'it's not going to affect my side of the property'.

"Then builders came along and demolished my garden wall and the outbuilding when I had expected it to be a conversion. Then they began to build a two-bedroom bungalow – it's huge. After I had complained, the developer put in new plans for the bungalow and they were approved.

"As it was before, I couldn't see the outbuilding from my garden or kitchen but this bungalow is right in my face. It stares straight at me and the windows are facing me. It's nothing like the original building."

Ms Osborne, who lives in a two-bedroom 1850s-built cottage and works at TV Licensing, says the new building is out of keeping with the surrounding properties and resembles a 'holiday bungalow'.

She has made a formal complaint to South Gloucestershire Council's planning and transport director Peter Jackson.

Ryan Skeets, spokesman for South Gloucestershire Council, said: "When the council was made aware that the works had altered from the previously approved plans, enforcement officers were sent to investigate and following this the developers were required to resubmit a new planning application for consideration.

"Under planning policies, the new application could still be recommended for approval. As part of this the council insisted that a boundary wall that had been partially demolished be reinstated. The council would be happy to look into any further concerns Mrs Osborne has, and will follow-up the matter to ensure that the boundary wall has been restored."

Mr Milton said: "I'm sorry Ms Osborne is unhappy with aspects of the development. However, the works have been undertaken to comply with planning legislation."