Medway family refused permission for extension for disabled son
They've accused planning officers of acting cruelly
A family has accused planning officers of acting “cruelly” following the “flawed” refusal of an annex for their severely disabled son.
Sonia Butler, 66, appeared visibly upset in the public gallery as Medway Council turned down plans for an assisted-living structure in Walters Road, Hoo St Werburgh.
The family say the outbuilding extension could provide a suitable home for their son, who has autism and complex needs, to live and be cared for by them.
At present, their son – who struggles with chronic pain and fatigue – has been forced to live in a friend’s spare bedroom while the family seek to resolve issues related to the stalled build of their main home.
The Butlers received permission to construct the property on the same site in 2018, but were left in the lurch by a builder who went bust.
And while officers found no fault in their outbuilding designs for their son, they asked it to be refused because of a “technicality” which they argue means it’s an annex to a property that doesn’t yet exist.
The family say the refusal was needlessly unfair and they’re only fighting for their child as any parent would.
Sonia told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “I didn’t sleep for 38 hours, because I couldn’t until I’d worked out how I was going to look after our son.
“Elected representatives have let down someone who needs them most, who needed to be considered more sympathetically and understandingly.
“We’ve tried to do everything right, but they just seem to want to obstruct us and block us and won’t listen to us. It’s felt quite cruel at times.”
Her husband Steve Butler, 67, added: “I don’t feel we’re doing anything out of the ordinary that any parent wouldn’t do faced with the situation we’re in.
“What’s keeping us going is trying to provide for our son.”
The Butlers first ran into problems with the main house when they say a rogue builder took £80,000 but only delivered half of the materials he promised before declaring bankruptcy without repaying them.
Then, just a year later, tragedy struck when another of their children, Nathan took his own life amid his own struggles with his mental health.
The 32-year-old also had autism and lived with gender identity disorder, body dysmorphia, Asperger’s syndrome, depression and anxiety.
His death severely impacted the whole family, and in particular his younger brother whose mental and physical health deteriorated as a consequence.
He suffers from fibromyalgia and ankylosing spondylitis, which cause chronic pain and fatigue and makes movement very difficult, and also has severe anxiety-based autism.
A proposed outbuilding extension to assist him involved lengthening an existing building and adding a sloped roof to accommodate solar panels – changes which were acceptable in principle to planning officers.
But they recommended the application for refusal at a Medway Council planning committee meeting held last Wednesday (September 24) because of a contractor error which meant footings for the main house were 80cm off from where they should have been.
An error the Butlers say they had discovered themselves and had contacted the council about last year to see what they could do
They applied three times to adapt the 2018 permission, but the authority rejected these saying they should remove the incorrect footings and reconstruct them in the right place.
The Butlers agreed, but before this work could be done their son’s housing situation became uncertain, and so they made the application for the annex.
Officers said the footings error means the house they’ve granted permission for doesn’t exist.
But previously the authority appeared to say the opposite, and enough work had been completed to validate the initial permission granted seven years ago.
The annex plans were to be refused outright, but support from independent councillor Michael Pearce and MP for Rochester and Strood, Lauren Edwards (Lab) meant it was brought before councillors.
At the meeting, Cllr Pearce argued the council knew the house was being built and so their refusal was unreasonable.
He also said the decision would be vulnerable to appeal because of procedural errors, particularly in not considering the Hoo St Werburgh and Chattenden Neighbourhood Plan which was implemented in November last year.
Cllr Pearce added: “The reason for refusal is flawed and unreasonable. It is based upon a claim the approved 2018 planning permission has not been legally implemented.
“However, officers visited and were satisfied with the situation and the 2018 plans and permission is legally implemented and is still live.”
He asked them to grant permission with an appropriately worded condition.
“This will spare further pain, stress and anxiety for a family that has already been through too much and mean the family are together for Christmas,” he explained.
Initially councillors seemed agreeable to overriding the officer’s recommendation.
Cllr Adrian Gulvin (Con) said: “I can’t get my head around why this is recommended for refusal.
“I can see the technicalities of the building itself has not yet been completed, but a substantial amount of work has been done. Are we being a bit too officious in this case?
“Surely if you look at it from a hard-nosed point of view, the most economic and the best form of care is to be looked after by their own families.”
But officers said if the application were refused they would make the reapplication process for the Butlers as quick as possible.
Chief planning officer Dave Harris even suggested he would look into whether the planning department could waive the costs of a new bid.
He added: “We absolutely want to support the applicant here, we understand the needs, and we want to find a solution.
“We’re all very sympathetic to them, we’ve just got to find something that works in planning terms.”
However, Sonia and Steve say such a pledge has been made previously without merit and they’ve already forked out more than £5,000 to the council to date.
The Butlers feel they were misrepresented during the meeting as officers said attempts to arrange a meeting to discuss the application had been made but did not mention one had already been arranged for October 1, nor the three applications to alter the 2018 plan.
Ultimately, councillors accepted refusal and reapplication would be the easiest route forward with 12 voting in favour of refusal and one councillor abstaining.
Cllr Pearce labelled the decision “completely bonkers” and said he was confident it would be overturned.
“At appeal, I believe the authority will struggle to convince an inspector that the proposal is not an annex when it so clearly is,” he explained.
He added: “It’s to help a disabled son and their family, who have been trying to build this annex for a number of years now. I just can’t understand why they would refuse it.
“I think this is a completely bonkers decision. It’s a very easy application to support.”
After the meeting, Sonia said the decision made her want to “scream and fall to the floor”.
She added: “I haven’t slept because of it; the rage because of the way they dealt with it.
“They made all sorts of efforts with the big developer’s applications that evening, but not with us.
“The big developments had all these conditions on them. We suggested conditions but were just told no.
“The sensation that I wanted to scream from my guts and just fall on the floor was almost overwhelming.”
The Butlers have had to purchase a caravan for their son to live in, as he soon will have to move out of where he’s currently staying.
But they are not giving up and are taking the refusal to appeal at the first possible opportunity with hopes the annex could be complete for all the family to be together by Christmas.
Contractors they have spoken with say the work would take, at most, six weeks to complete once they have permission.
Sonia added: “We’ve fought for all our children their entire lives, we’ll never give up.
“I think they just want us to run out of steam and roll over, but that’s just not going to happen.”
A Medway Council spokesperson said: “The Planning Committee’s decision on 24 September was based on a correct assessment of the application.
“While there is no objection to the principle of an annexe to a dwelling, permission could not be granted as there is currently no valid dwelling or implemented permission to which the annexe could be linked.
“We remain committed to working with the applicant to support a revised submission that meets all relevant planning requirements.”