6 days ago
Couple ordered to tear down home gym after neighbours complain about parking
A couple have been ordered to tear down a home gym they built on their driveway after neighbours complained that it affected parking on their new estate.
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.
