A man who built a garden annexe to care for his terminally-ill father has been ordered to tear it down after neighbours complained it plunged them into darkness.

Martin Charles, 42, constructed the summer house at his home in Wilsden, West Yorkshire, after his elderly father, who had asbestosis, became too ill to live alone.

But the outbuilding - complete with its own living room and shower - sparked a backlash from neighbours, who complained it was so overbearing it blocked out their daylight.

Bradford Council launched an investigation in 2024 and concluded the building had been erected without planning permission and stretched almost wall-to-wall across his modest terraced plot.

Officials said the hulking building ran more than four metres deep along the shared boundary wall, overshadowing 'a significant proportion' of next door's rear garden.

A long-running planning row has now ended with Mr Charles given three months to demolish it or carry out costly changes to reduce its scale.

When the Daily Mail visited the terraced home Mr Charles's son Jake, 23, told how his father had already begun the process of razing the summer house.

He told how the dispute had left his father 'stressed out' and counting losses in the 'tens of thousands'.

Jake said his father was also grieving the loss of his own father - who died suddenly last year aged 75, and for whom the annexe was built in the first place.

He said: 'My dad's been stressed out by it all. He didn't think it would ever be a problem.

'My grandad had asbestosis and was dying, so dad built a place for him in the back garden. It was just somewhere he could sit, get some fresh air and be looked after.

'It wasn't a house. It was literally a living room and a shower. There was no kitchen or anything like that - he wasn't living in there.

'It was just his space where he could get some fresh air. He could come into the house for dinner.

'We had no other option. He couldn't live on his own anymore, so we brought him here so we could look after him during the day.'

Jake said his grandfather never slept in the annexe and only used it as a place to rest when visiting the family.

He added: 'He never slept in it or lived in it properly. It was just somewhere he could go when he visited - like a summer house.'

Under planning rules, permission is routinely required when building within two metres of a neighbour's boundary.

Bradford Council became involved when the family's immediate neighbours lodged complaints that the 3.3m-tall structure had plunged their garden into darkness.

Wilsden Parish Council also objected, claiming the annexe was too large to be treated as a simple garden building and looked more like a separate house.

Jake disputed that the annexe was overbearing and accused his neighbours of 'moaning about everything'.

He added: 'It's frustrating, because all it was meant to do was help my grandad while he was dying.

'It was good for my kids as well. They loved going in there, watching the big TV and playing with their toys.

'Now it's all got to go. My dad has lost all that money and now he's having to knock it down himself.'

Mr Charles insisted he had not realised planning permission was required for the project.

However, his attempts to fix the situation retrospectively failed, with a planning application refused and two subsequent appeals dismissed.

Council planners also turned down his suggestion to effectively cut off the end of the roof so it appeared less imposing.

In the latest Planning Inspectorate appeal loss, inspector Rachael Bartlett said the 'unauthorised building' caused 'unacceptable harm to... the living conditions' of next door, due to its 'size and proximity to the boundary'.

She gave Mr Charles three months to either demolish the outhouse totally or make sweeping costly changes to reduce its scale and move it two metres from the boundary.

The outhouse was already half-razed when the Daily Mail visited. Conveniently, Mr Charles runs a demolition company and is undertaking the work himself.

Mr Charles had also appealed against the strict three-month deadline, arguing he needed up to a year to raise money for builders following the death of his father.

But Ms Bartlett added: 'Extending the compliance period to 12 months, would extend the suffering to neighbours who have objected.

'I acknowledge the unfortunate personal circumstances of the appellant and his financial position. However, the appellant has known since lodging the appeal in November 2025 that he would have to comply with the notice.'

Mr Charles's neighbour declined to comment when approached by the Mail.

A Bradford Council spokesperson said: 'The Council has a duty to ensure building work is carried out safely and in line with regulations. Those planning works should always seek advice prior to construction to find out if they need to apply for planning permission. 

'In this case the structure was constructed without planning permission. A retrospective planning application was submitted but refused because the Council determined the outbuilding caused harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. 

'That decision was subsequently upheld at appeal. The Council has since granted planning permission for a smaller outbuilding set further away from the neighbouring boundary; however, this permission has not been implemented. As the unauthorised development remained in place, enforcement action was taken.'