Homeowner forced to tear down newbuild after neighbour complained he 'stole her privacy'

The property, featuring a mega-basement, solar panels and a wrap-around balcony, replaced a modest cottage that Mr Cox razed to make way for the development.

Inspector Peter White ruled that the building effectively lacked valid planning permission due to conflicting drawings submitted in 2019.

Ipswich Borough Council had initially threatened to demolish the entire structure before scaling back its demands, requiring Mr Cox to strip the house closer to what was originally approved.

The development has caused substantial harm to the privacy of neighbour Lucy Drake, whose Grade-II listed home backs onto the protected Central Conservation Area beside the 130-year-old Christchurch Park.

Mrs Drake, a Liberal Democrat councillor, had not opposed the original 2014 and 2019 proposals to replace the cottage with a larger dwelling, despite anticipating some loss of outlook.

However, she was alarmed when construction began in 2022 and the emerging structure differed markedly from what she had reviewed.

The towering property now looms behind her redbrick wall, its first-floor balcony and attic roof terraces affording clear views into her garden and home.

In her official objections, Mrs Drake stated: "I enjoyed a very open and verdant rear outlook from my house and a high level of privacy in my garden."

Inspector White determined that the property was effectively unlawful because while submitted drawings depicted a full-length balcony, the accompanying floorplans showed a much shorter structure spanning only a third of the building's width.

The inspector noted that the balcony constituted "a very prominent, and dominating, feature" from Mrs Drake's garden, with effects "very substantially greater than those of the previous dwelling."

Under the enforcement notice upheld this month by the Planning Inspectorate, Mr Cox has been given six months to reduce the first-floor balcony to one-third of its current length and install timber privacy screens.

He must also fix shut a first-floor window, remove a glass panel, and fit louvred metal screens over the attic roof terraces.

In council paperwork, Mr Cox denied any deliberate wrongdoing and placed responsibility with the local planning authority, insisting: "If there is an error it was the local planning authority that made it."

He maintained that he had followed professional guidance and adhered to the planning process, stating he was neither a planning expert nor a lawyer.

Mrs Drake said the protracted dispute had left her and neighbouring residents exhausted.

She argued the entire situation could have been avoided, stating: "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."

When approached this week, Cox declined to comment further.