A high-tech 'man cave' overlooking a couple's bedroom, which was built without planning permission, can now remain standing after a stormy council meeting.
Estate boss David Whittaker spent years building Otterbrook, a stunning mansion on the outskirts of Southport, which is now on sale for a whopping £4 million.
However, a summer house, built by Mr Whittaker without planning permission, overlooking his neighbour's house, has sparked controversy in the village.
Martin Sayer, who opposed the plans, said the structure overlooking his home in the village of Churchtown was a 'proverbial man cave'.
Mr Sayer highlighted that the estate agents who sold Otterbrook described the summer house as an “unparalleled outdoor entertaining space that can be enjoyed all year round”.
Estate boss David Whittaker built state-of-the-art 'man cave' without planning permission at his £4m Stockport mansion
His neighbors say the 'man cave' looks into their bedroom – but the council has decided it can stay
The 'man cave', a luxurious vacation home, features elegant wood finishes combined with charcoal-colored pillars
It is situated next to the impressive mansion of light red bricks and large glass panels.
Sayer, who has lived in the village for decades and plays golf at Royal Birkdale, said: 'I would like to raise our concerns about a large prefab building, described as the garden room, is the size of a large three-car garage, and positioned just a few meters from our bedroom window.
'It was built without planning permission, although we directly objected to David Whittaker, the developer, when it was being erected, and suggested that a smaller building would be acceptable and would allow for a copse of low trees and shrubs.
“This would have ensured the safety of the colony of red squirrels that feed on the berries in our hedgerow, as many have been displaced due to widespread tree felling.
'The original Otterbook property had already exceeded the 40 percent construction limit and this new property added a further 22 percent prior to the approval of the retrospective garage plan.
'I am sure that after the planning committee visit you are fully aware of its features – a fitted kitchen, entertainment area, bathrooms, utility room, double doors opening onto the pergola immediately adjacent to our property.
“The sales literature describes the garden room as offering unrivaled outdoor entertaining space that can be enjoyed all year round – that’s what we care about.
'So the purpose of this remote building from the main house is to be the proverbial man cave, remote game room or entertainment center, with all its modern living features.
The £4 million property is gated and has a large front wall and driveway
The house itself has a large front and back garden, as well as a circular water feature at the entrance
Your garden looks well-kept, with trees tucked into specific areas of land
'No doubt the building is equipped or designed with multimedia equipment that could be used for parties or noisy entertainment, in a steel framed building with limited sound insulation adjacent to and below our bedroom window.
'We have tried to be reasonable and considerate of any retrospective planning changes to this property, whilst objecting to features that directly impact our room.
'I would ask you to consider whether the approval of this garden room is reasonable and fair, considering that with over two acres of extensive land, the garden room could have been located in a more suitable location.
'Otherwise this dream house with a garden room could become a nightmare for us neighbors.
'We were pretty open to a small or reasonably sized building. There are also many other areas in his large garden.
'Otterbrook has been subject to ongoing retrospective planning – it seems an obvious planning strategy as they all seem to be approved after appeal.
'If this planning application is approved, we can only assume that it will set a precedent that will allow future owners of our property to build substantial entertainment facilities overlooking Otterbrook?
“Finally, you, as members of the planning committee, would be happy to have a great year-round entertainment facility” positioned right next to your bedroom window.”
Mr Sayer raised his concerns to West Lancashire Borough Council's planning committee.
The council's planning committee recently visited the site to inspect the summer house built next to the Sayers' home.
Councilor Edward Pope said: 'We visited this week and saw it in reality.
'I agree with the neighbor and other speakers. It's a big warehouse, or whatever you want to call it, and a lot of it is outside. The garden is huge and the building could have been placed anywhere else. Whether it was built there deliberately, I don't know. But I think it affects the neighbor's convenience and I would like to refuse.
Planning manager Steven Faulkner told the hearing the summer house raised a number of questions, including a number of “speculative” questions.
He advised local residents affected by the structure to raise their concerns with the police and other bodies.
The planning committee approved the retrospective application 5-3 with two abstentions.
Mr Whittaker said: 'I can't understand why the planning application is getting so much attention.
Disgruntled residents were told they should take their concerns to the police
The property is currently on the market for a whopping £4 million
'The new built property replaced an existing dwelling. This house was built up to the limit where the 'summer house' is located today. The main property and grounds were developed and numerous planning applications submitted along the way.
'The summer house was built under permitted development, but these rights were previously removed (which was once considered an overreach by the LPA).
'A retrospective planning application has been submitted. The planning application was recommended for approval and was approved.
“Councillors discussed the request at a committee meeting, but were unable to find any legal reason to reject the request, because it does not exist. The previous demolished garage was in the same location as this summer house.
'This garage had a sloping roof and was much taller, you can see in the annex, it was sloping where the new building has a flat roof.
'The main property has Velux on the approved neighbor's side of the drawing. The neighbor expressed some concern after the planning was approved. I removed these Velux when building the roof, so as not to give the impression of neglecting your property, even though I had a plan for that. The property is 85m from the road and does not affect any property.
'I could have extended the summer house if I wanted as I am only 33% above the original gross internal footprint and can go up to 40% within planning policy.
«If it were not for the legal representative of the municipality having explained to them once again that there are no legal grounds to refuse the request, then this request would have been refused.
'I would then have gone to appeal, where I would have been entitled to recover costs from the council. The decisions made by these councilors have financial consequences for local taxpayers; but since they are not held accountable, they will continue to do so.'
