A MAN who used a legal loophole to build a bungalow in his garden without permission could yet win his battle to have it officially recognised.

Worcester City Council’s planning department has stated it can find “no cogent (logical and convincing) reason” to refuse St John’s resident Terence Dovey’s request to have his controversial new bungalow given status as an individual property.

His application is due to be discussed on Thursday.

Mr Dovey was featured in your Worcester News earlier this month when the city’s planning committee accused him of using a “ruse” to sidestep planning rulings and build the bungalow behind his home at Laugherne Road, which stands right beside some allotments and within the city’s protected ‘green network’.

Despite having been twice refused permission, Mr Dovey exploited a loophole relating to the height and width of permitted building work and legitimately built the bungalow.

Under development rights most homeowners can build an ancillary building to their own property so long as it is no more than four metres (13ft) high and no more than half the garden covered. He appeared before the committee two weeks ago to request the bungalow be recognised as a self-contained property, which would allow it to be sold separately – though Mr Dovey denied this was his intention.

The committee was not impressed, voting 8-1 against his application and stating the change would be “harmful to the character of the surrounding area” and “would set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature”.

However, under a recent change of procedure, the city’s planning committee can no longer reject an application outright – rather, it only decides it is “minded to refuse”, giving officers time to analyse and formally draft the precise reasons for refusal before the final decision is confirmed at the following meeting. The city’s planning team has not come back with the response councillors had hoped.

In his newly-published report, the city’s head of urban environment John Wrightson has recommended committee members reverse their decision and approve Mr Dovey’s application, making it clear their reasoning would not, in his opinion, stand up at an appeal hearing.

Mr Wrightson states that with the bungalow now in place, he does not believe that changing its status to that of an individual property would in itself have a negative impact on the area.

“While I fully appreciate the committee’s concerns and discomfort... I do not consider a convincing case could be made at appeal,” he states.

A final decision will be made at the meeting.