EXCLUSIVE Neighbours defend couple ordered to demolish home gym they built on their own driveway because of 'dangerous' parking situation

Daily Mail​

4 days ago

Neighbours have defended a couple who were ordered to tear down a home gym they built on their own driveway following complaints it would create a 'dangerous' parking situation on their estate.
Paul Willis, 42, and Emma Woodley, 43, were told to remove the building - thought to be worth tens of thousands of pounds - because it would mean one of their cars would be parked on the street.
But despite the issues caused by parked cars, many locals on the estate in Basingstoke, Hampshire, have 'sympathy' for the pair - and feel the council may be being 'too harsh'.
Finance worker Daniel Schofield, 29, said: 'Parking is the biggest issue on this estate and that's what you will hear from a lot of people - but it's not been like that forever.'
But, he felt as though the council ordering the couple to take down the home gym was going too far.
He said: 'If it's thought out properly and the owners are careful, like in terms of telling people where to park, then I don't see an issue.
'If it's not an eyesore then I don't see why it can't really stay.'
Mr Schofield said if the homeowners explained the parking situation to potential gym clients then it's 'not going to have much of a knock on effect'.
Another neighbour, who wished to be referred to only as Matt, said while parking in the area can be 'difficult' - he thought the situation is 'stupid'.
He said: 'It's not bothering anyone - it's in their garden and it's in their parking space, they can do whatever they like.
'It's silly - they are not harming anyone.'
Mr Willis and Ms Woodley, who moved into the £440,000 property last year, have argued that they do not park on the street and instead use nearby unallocated spaces.
They have also said they would lose substantial income if they are made to tear down the building, where Mr Willis carries out personal training sessions with clients.
The couple were nevertheless denied retrospective planning permission by the council on the basis it might 'set a precedent' for other residents to do the same.
'AJ' Nair, 41, who lives on a road close to the house, said that parking has caused issues for neighbours.
He said that all properties have their own designated space so it could be problematic for more visitors to park on the road.
The digital designer said: 'Parking will definitely be a problem on that road.
The couple argued they did not use both parking spaces before the building was constructed, due to a corner hill making visibility difficult when entering and leaving the property
'Sometimes, during the working hours, there are no cars there and it will seem pleasant - I would say it's normal.
'If people come during that time and exercise, they will park there and it wouldn't be normal there.'
Another neighbour, who wished to remain anonymous, said she was concerned over the building of the home gym because of issues caused by parked cars.
'Parking round here is absolutely awful,' she said.
'It's busy now and it's the middle of the day.
'It gets really dangerous round there as people park along the edge so they can't see when you are trying to drive round from the left or right.
'One neighbour had a head on collision with someone coming round - we have already had issues and accidents because of the parking.'
She said she agreed with the council that allowing the development may 'set a precedent' to others.
However, Mr Willis said he researched planning rules and believed they could build the single-storey gym without needing approval by the council.
It was only after building began and a complaint was made to the council, that the couple were told to put in a retrospective planning permission.
A resident, who also wished to remain anonymous, said: 'Parking is an issue here.
'But, if it's in their garden and it isn't affecting anyone then I don't see a problem.'
The resident said that she is aware of 'accidents and near misses' in the area due to problems created by parked cars.
Another local said she had sympathy for the couple, but commented that they should have been aware of their requirement to seek correct planning permission.
She said: 'I have never seen anybody get irate about parking - there always seems to be enough spaces.
'It's just each to their own. Go and fight your own battles.
'Anybody building that sort of thing should know you need planning permission.
'But, they've done it now, so let them keep it.
'I have sympathy for them.'
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'.
She added that she and her partner park a second car they own in unallocated spaces nearby.
The IT manager said: 'Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time.'
Ms Woodley continued: '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, causing more of a hindrance to pedestrians and drivers.
'There's a bend to the road and a hill, so we have to be on the road to get safe visibility about whether it's safe to move out or not.'
Ms Woodley added that the removal of the gym would have a 'significant cost impact' on the couple.
Mr Willis is set to lose out on income he earns from fitness instructing if the gym is knocked down.
At the planning meeting to decide if their outbuilding would be allowed, Ms Woodley said: 'It's used as a gym as my partner is a part-time personal trainer.'
She said the home gym was used for personal training seven hours a week, and clients are asked to park in unallocated spaces at the nearby shops or walk to the gym rather than park in neighbouring spaces.
Ms Woodley said: 'We're planning on being here until we retire.
'Obviously we will have the loss of income on a monthly basis which means that things will be a struggle, we might have to sell the property.
'We're looking at alternative options of whether there's anything we can do.'
Ms Woodley suggested the couple are looking into using some space in their garden for an outbuilding, but regretted that that would make their garden smaller.
'There was no mention anywhere about the council rules around not changing the use of a parking space', she said.
'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 and using it for a caravan? It just seems ludicrous.'
At the planning meeting, Miss Woodley said: 'The loss of one parking space does not materially impact parking provision within the development.
'We have expressed to the planning officer that we would be willing to convert the outbuilding into a garage.'
Councillor Paul Miller said that parking policies are not usually set aside when planning applications are being considered.
He said: 'For retrospective applications concerning important policies, every councillor in every ward has to think three times about them.
'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.'
Councillor Karen Watts said: 'I don't know if there is something to consider here, 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 that her 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.'
Councillor Paul Gaskell asked planning officers whether another parking space could be made with the land the couple own.
The officer said it would be the couple's responsibility as to whether this could be done.
Seven councillors voted for the refusal of the application, one voted against and one abstained.