A MAN has been ordered to demolish the ‘home’ he built in his back garden without planning permission after failing to convince the council it was a caravan.

Worcester City Council ruled an application by Dr Hayder Ghazi Alwattar for a ‘caravan’ that was built in the back garden of his home in Wrendale Drive, Worcester, was unlawful and ordered him to demolish it.

However, Dr Alwattar has now looked to the government’s planning inspectors, which have the power to overrule the council, in a bid to get the decision overturned.

If the inspectors side with Mr Alwattar then it could mean the controversial back garden home could stay.

READ MORE: No to demolishing garage for 'modern' home in Worcester

Several neighbours in Wrendale Drive had complained the steel structure was not a ‘caravan’ because it had been built in the garden from scratch and the council’s planners were also not convinced it met the legal definition for a caravan.

One objector said: “The request states a mobile home or caravan, which implies it is able to be moved, however the residents have built a permanent structure in their garden.

READ MORE: Council rejects plan for home in St John's garden saying it is too big

“Not only does it block other gardens, sunlight and privacy, it is unsightly and does not fit in with the aesthetic of the new build estate.”

Mr Alwattar asked for retrospective permission for the ‘mobile home/caravan’ – which included a kitchen, shower and toilet – earlier this year.

But the rejection by planners at Worcester City Council meant that Mr Alwattar would be faced with having to demolish the home which, he claimed, was being used by a member of his family.

READ MORE: 'Turntable' driveway plan off busy London Road in Worcester rejected

Worcester City Council then issued Mr Alwattar with a notice ordering him to demolish the structure which he has now appealed.

The application had argued that the steel structure, which has its own skirting and steps, could be moved and would always be ancillary to the main house and therefore was a ‘caravan.’

The council’s planners were still unconvinced and ruled that it could not be classed as a caravan because it could not even be proven the structure was able to be moved or towed.

Neighbours had provided photos to the council which showed the structure being constructed piece-by-piece in the back garden which they argued was proof it could never be described as a caravan.