Couple ordered to tear down home gym after neighbours complain about parking
Paul Willis and Emma Woodley built the gym across the back of their garden and one of two parking spaces that came with the £440,000 house they bought last year in Basingstoke, Hampshire.
Neighbours complained to the council and forced the couple to put in a retrospective planning application, which has now been denied.
Councillors voiced concerns that it would 'set a precedent' and that if other residents did the same, there may be 'no other parking spaces' left on the estate.
As a result, the couple have been ordered to remove the gym and reinstate the parking area within six months, a decision Ms Woodley has described as 'ludicrous'.
Mr Willis, 42, runs his own personal training business and having researched planning rules, the couple believed they were allowed to build the single-storey gym without permission.
It was only after building began that a complaint was made to Basingstoke and Deane borough council and the couple were told to put in a retroactive planning application. When they submitted their application, neighbours objected.
Olivia Lucas, one of those who opposed it, said in a letter that the gym 'causes the owners to park on the corner of the road, causing the blind spot'.
She added: 'We already have parking issues with either cars parking fully on the road and other users being unable to get past, or parking on the pavements and pedestrians routinely putting themselves, children and dogs in danger having to walk out from a blind spot behind one of these cars.
'As this property has already been erected, I have witnessed the danger that this owner is causing by parking their car on the road rather than on the driveway that once was (not to mention all of their clients' cars on a Tuesday night).
'People turning into [the road] have to use up the full width of the road because they are unable to see the any oncoming traffic due to [their] car being parked on the road and therefore a head-on collision is inevitable at some point.'
Ms Woodley said she and her partner parked a second car they own in unallocated spaces nearby. The 43-year-old IT manager said: 'Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time.'
'We didn't use both of those spaces prior to the building being built anyway, just because of the constant need to keep pulling out into a road which we didn't have good visibility to see.'
Ms Woodley added that the removal of the gym would have a 'significant cost impact' on the couple as Mr Willis would lose income he earns from fitness instruction if the gym is knocked down.
She told a planning meeting that the home gym was used for personal training seven hours a week and clients were asked to park in unallocated spaces at the nearby shops or walk to the gym rather than using neighbouring spaces.
Ms Woodley said: 'We're planning on being here until we retire. Obviously we will have the loss of income which means that things will be a struggle, we might have to sell the property. We're looking at alternative options.'
She added: 'There was no mention anywhere about the council rules around not changing the use of a parking space.
'It's clearly evident when we walk around the estate, we have got people that have put sheds on their parking spaces.
'Even caravans – what's the difference between us using it for a caravan? It just seems ludicrous.'
Cllr Paul Miller said parking policies were not usually set aside when planning applications were being considered.
He said: 'Parking is a national problem all over – we all know that. Another car unable to park at a property is another car that's going to be somewhere else.'
Cllr Karen Watts said: 'It could set a precedent that other people could do the same in the area and there would be no other parking spaces.'
Ms Woodley said she and her partner 'aren't parking on the road, people do park on the road, but they aren't from our house'.
She claimed: 'The planning officer parked on the road outside when she came to visit and do the inspection, even though the unallocated space opposite was free.'
Seven councillors voted for the refusal of the application, one voted against and one abstained.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves to take aim at environmental protections in bid to speed up infrastructure projects, say reports
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an attempt to accelerate infrastructure building and boost the economy, according to reports. The chancellor is considering major reforms that would make it more difficult for wildlife concerns to hold up developments, according to The Times. Treasury officials are said to be drafting another planning reform bill, the publication reported. The move reportedly involves tearing up parts of European environmental rules, which developers have argued slow down crucial projects. While Labour ministers have previously insisted their current planning overhaul would balance growth with nature, Ms Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go further. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill going through Parliament overrides existing habitat and nature protections, which, if passed, would allow developers to make general environmental improvements and pay into a nature restoration fund that improves habitats on other sites. But Ms Reeves is considering more contentious reforms that are likely to trigger further backlash from environmental groups, according to The Times. Among the changes under discussion are plans for a smaller, UK-only list of protected species, which would give less weight to wildlife considered rare across Europe but relatively common in Britain, The Times said. Ms Reeves is also reportedly considering abolishing the EU 'precautionary principle' that forces developers to prove projects will have no impact on protected natural sites. Instead, a new test would assess the risks and benefits of building. The chancellor is also exploring limits on legal challenges from environmental campaigners. Speaking to the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month, Ms Reeves said: 'The reason that HS2 is not coming to my city of Leeds anymore anytime soon, is because I'm afraid, as a country, we've cared more about the bats than we have about the commuter times for people in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and we've got to change that, 'Because I care more about a young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails, and I care more about my energy bills and my constituents than I do about the views of people from their windows.' High-profile examples of costly protections include the £100m Buckinghamshire 'bat tunnel' built to protect wildlife from HS2 trains and the so-called 'fish disco' at Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, which uses sound to deter fish from cooling system intakes. The existing Planning and Infrastructure Bill already proposes a 'nature restoration fund' under which developers could offset environmental damage by paying for conservation schemes elsewhere. But the bill has faced criticism from both environmental groups and developers, who fear it will fail to speed up construction. Paul Miner of the countryside charity CPRE told The Times that targeting habitats regulations would 'take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery'.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves to cut ‘bats and newts' in boost to developers
Rachel Reeves is preparing to strip back environmental protections in an effort to boost the economy by speeding up infrastructure projects. The chancellor is considering reforms that would make it far harder for concerns about nature to stop development, which she insists is crucial to restoring growth and improving living standards. The Treasury has begun preparing for another planning reform bill and is thinking about tearing up key parts of European environmental rules that developers say are making it harder to build key projects. Labour ministers have repeatedly insisted that their current planning overhaul will not come at the expense of nature, promising a 'win-win' system where developers will pay to offset environmental damage. But Reeves is understood to believe that the government must go significantly further, after expressing frustration that the interests of 'bats and newts' are being allowed to stymie critical infrastructure. She has tasked officials with looking at much more contentious reforms, which are likely to provoke a furious backlash from environmentalists and cause unease for some Labour MPs. A smaller, UK-only list of protected species is being planned, which would place less weight on wildlife — including types of newt — that is rare elsewhere in Europe but more common in Britain. Developers would also no longer have to prove that projects would have no impact on protected natural sites, under plans that would abolish the 'precautionary principle' enshrined in European rules. Instead, a new test would look at risks and benefits of potential projects. Further curbs to judicial review are also being considered by Reeves to stop key projects being delayed by legal challenges from environmentalists. No decisions have been made, but work is underway and Treasury sources acknowledged there was a growing belief that the government needed to go further, as Reeves says she wants to make boosting Britain's sluggish productivity the centrepiece of her autumn budget. She argued this week that building more infrastructure such as roads and railways were crucial to this aim. A Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently going through parliament attempts to encourage development through a 'nature restoration fund' through which developers will be allowed to press ahead with projects by setting up schemes elsewhere to offset their environmental impact. • The grid is struggling — and our green future hangs in the balance But the plan has been criticised by environmental groups while also attracting scepticism from some developers, who fear it will not work in practice and do little to speed up building. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who stood down as energy minister in May, is urging his former colleagues to go further to achieve Labour's promise of 150 major infrastructure projects. 'While I think the planning bill will work for housing, I don't think it is sufficiently focused on the major infrastructure projects, so it is encouraging that the Treasury is going to have another look at whether we've really got this right,' he said. 'The government has to face up to the tensions in the Habitat Regulations which are making it hard to build essential infrastructure and the reality is that at some point someone needs to make a hard decision and say 'on some things, you just have to press ahead'.' The rules, which incorporate the EU Habitats Directive into British law, ban killing of hundreds of species, including types of bats, news, voles, snails, spiders, insects and woodlice. Developers must prove there is no risk to protected sites and species before being allowed to go ahead with projects, under rules which critics say impose an 'impossibly high standard' on vital projects. Reeves is increasingly sympathetic to such criticism, after repeatedly hitting out at 'ridiculous' environmental protections. She said last month that she cared 'more about the young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails', after a speech in January in which she said developers should be able to 'focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about bats and newts'. Sir Keir Starmer has also expressed frustration with the ability of campaigners to delay projects through legal challenges, and is already introducing rules which limit judicial review to override the 'whims of nimbys'. Campaign groups and residents, who currently have three opportunities to apply for judicial review, which will be reduced to two, or one in cases deemed by a judge 'totally without merit'. Reeves is now considering allowing only one opportunity to bring any challenge. Some Labour MPs and peers want her to go further by using dedicated acts of parliament to prevent any legal challenge to specific named projects. The plans are at an early stage and are likely to cause tension with ministers in other departments who have pledged to protect the environment. Paul Miner, of the countryside charity CPRE, said targeting habitats regulations would 'take us backwards rather than forwards on nature recovery', adding: 'We urge the government to drop the worn-out 'builders versus blockers' narrative which wrongly frames climate and nature as being in conflict with economic growth.' Becky Pullinger, of the Wildlife Trusts, said maintaining environmental standards was 'essential if we are to achieve targets to protect and restore the natural world which is suffering huge declines, saying Reeves should abandon 'the myth that deregulation will lead to economic growth'. But Robbie Owen, head of infrastructure planning at Pinsent Masons, said: 'Ministers are finally realising that their rhetoric about reform doesn't match up up the reality of their bill. We have been saying to ministers and officials all year that the bill needs to go further and it seems that message has finally been heard.'
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Trans ruling set to be big issue for SNP at next election
John Swinney's 'fear of activists' within the SNP has prevented him from implementing the Supreme Court ruling which asserts sex is defined by biology, a feminist campaign group has said. For Women Scotland (FWS) won the backing of the UK's highest court in April for its case that the legal definition of sex in the Equality Act is based on sex at birth, not by which gender people may want to be identified by. However, the SNP government has faced criticism for not implementing the ruling to enforce single-sex spaces for biological men and women in public sector services such as schools and prisons. Susan Smith, a director of FWS, which is taking the Scottish government to court for the second time over the issue, told LBC News that 'fear of activists' in the SNP was preventing ministers from implementing the ruling. She argued that its policies, including delaying implementing the ruling and making gender self-ID easier, were likely to backfire on the party in Scottish parliament elections next year. Sections within the SNP base still strongly support the policies pursued by Nicola Sturgeon, despite these now being viewed as costing the party wider public support. Swinney was 'risking making this an election issue', Smith said. John Swinney risks a lawsuit damaging him shortly before the Holyrood election next year JANE BARLOW/PA 'If we do end up going to court that will be close to the 2026 election and I cannot understand why John Swinney would want to preside over another humiliating legal defeat,' she said. Swinney had agreed to meet FWS to discuss the issue but later pulled out, saying he 'had a lot on his plate', Smith claimed. 'I think he'll be wishing had met with us,' she added. 'I don't know if the Scottish government thinks we'll get bored and go away but we won't.' The new legal action wants a court ruling on the legality of Scottish government's policies in prisons and schools. Under official guidance, men and boys who claim to have switched gender to female can enter single-sex women's spaces. The guidance also allows for biological males to compete against girls in school sports if they say they identify as female. • Hadley Freeman: Scotland is sullied by the cult of gender ideology Police Scotland became one of the first public services to exclude trans men and women from spaces such as toilets and changing rooms in offices and police stations designated for biological men and women last month. But the Scottish government is yet to update its advice to the wider public sector, including the civil service, schools and prisons, totalling hundreds of thousands of employees, saying it is waiting for official guidance from the UK-wide Equalities and Human Rights Commission. FWS said it had been left with 'little choice' but to take the Scottish government to court again after nationalist politicians refused to abandon gender self-ID policies, which the group says are now clearly in breach of the law. Formal proceedings began on Friday with the lodging of court papers. The Scottish government has 21 days to respond. The Scottish government said it would not comment on a live legal action.
