RESIDENTS have said a plan to build a garage and home as part of an ‘unofficial taxi office’ should not be allowed as part of the land does not belong to their neighbour - but the council has said it should go ahead.

A plan to build a new detached double garage in the rear garden of a home in Camp Avenue in Worcester has led neighbours to object after it was revealed the garage would be accessed by a shared driveway running between the back of the home and homes in Sebright Avenue.

Residents fear the garage and home office would be used as a taxi garage and office by their neighbour.

Cllr Louis Griffiths, who represents Battenhall, said the plan should be rejected as the extensions would require access to a private right of way that is shared, paid for and maintained by several residents in Sebright Avenue.

Cllr Griffiths said: “The land is not Mr Hussain’s to build on and therefore the application should be refused.”

Council planning officers said the front extension or the new rear garage would not lead to loss of light or privacy for the neighbours.

A report, due to be discussed by the council’s planning committee next Thursday (February 20), said the objections by neighbours – which were largely about ownership of the land – could not be used as a reason to reject the plan as they were not relevant.

The report said: “The proposed garage and home office would sit comfortably within the size of the plot and would be constructed in render and tiles to match the existing property and would not therefore appear out of character with the surrounding buildings.”

The plan also includes a single-storey extension to the garage at the front of the Camp Hill Avenue house which residents have not objected to.

Nine objections were raised by neighbours in Sebright Avenue and Camp Hill Avenue.

Objector Nicolette Kelly of Sebright Avenue said allowing the garage to be accessed through the shared driveway would affect her privacy. She said the land between the gardens had been left wild for animals and cars manoeuvring would be disturbing.

Objectors Chris and Melissa Boxall of Camp Hill Avenue said: “This is a quiet cul-de-sac and we fear for the increased level of traffic this might bring and therefore, the safety of our children and those of the neighbours.”

Cath and Dene Bridge, also of Camp Hill Avenue, said: “If there is traffic down the back lane of our property at all hours, it will be disruptive and noisy. I believe that this property also does not have vehicular access rights to the back of the property and so could not use this garage for a vehicle.”