A LITTLE-known legal loophole has allowed a Worcester man to build a bungalow in his garden – despite having been repeatedly refused planning permission.

In a case which could have grave implications for Worcester City Council’s ability to restrict small developments, the city’s planning committee was told that Terence Dovey had acted within the law when he built a bungalow without permission at the rear of his home on Laugherne Road, St John’s.

He used a loophole regarding the height and width of the building.

Angry committee members accused Mr Dovey of using a “ruse” to side-step previous planning rulings, and voted to ignore officers’ advice and reject his application to have the bungalow recognised as a self-contained property.

Mr Dovey first applied to build a bungalow in his garden in 2001.

He was refused permission as his home backs on to allotments and is part of the city’s protected green network. He appealed against the decision, but it was upheld by a Government inspector who agreed the development would have a “permanent and detrimental” effect.

However, the inspector added that under permitted development rights, most homeowners can build an ancillary building to their own property without needing planning permission – so long as it is no more than four metres (13ft) high, and no more than half the garden is covered.

Some properties which have special restrictions regarding development would be unable to do so.

Mr Dovey built a large double garage/storeroom in his garden, which he converted last year into the residential bungalow he had originally wanted.

This week he told the planning committee: “Everybody’s got a right to permitted development, it’s just nobody knows about it. I’m not saying what we’re doing is right – what I’m saying is, in planning law you can do it.”

Mr Dovey was applying to change the bungalow’s status from being part of his own home into a standalone property. He denied his intention was to sell it on the open market.

City planning officers had reluctantly recommended his application be approved, pointing out the change in status would have little impact now the bungalow had been built. Senior planning officer Alan Coleman said he saw “no material grounds” on which to refuse.

But the committee voted by 8-1 that it was minded to reject Mr Dovey’s application, stating his scheme could set a dangerous precedent and that recognising the bungalow as an individual property would ultimately be contrary to the planning inspector’s original ruling.

Committee member Andy Roberts said: “I share the feeling that this application is the result of a ruse which is being used to get round the planning process. If we refuse it, the result is that an appeal may award costs against us. But if we agree it, we’re going against everything we really think is right, and everything we believe is in the public interest.”

Mr Dovey said afterwards he intended to appeal.