Planners reject Coles' underground pool plan
Singer Cheryl Cole and footballer husband Ashley Cole have had a proposal for an underground swimming pool thrown out by planning officials.
The couple wanted to build the 12-by-five metre pool and “a modest gym and spa” beneath their mansion in Surry, England to escape the prying eyes of paparazzi and reporters.
When their original application was rejected on the grounds that it was “disproportionate” to the size of the house, the pair appealed.
They have now learned their appeal has been dismissed, despite their claims that their celebrity status should have made it an “exceptional” case.
X Factor judge Cole and her Chelsea footballer husband had argued through their planning consultant that they had a right to privacy in their home near Guildford, which is surrounded by five hectares of land.
Speaking on their behalf, Jonathan Phillips said they could not go to public gyms and swimming pools.
He wrote to the Planning Inspectorate, which considered the appeal: “It is also not reasonable to suggest that they could could utilise external health and fitness facilities because (drawing upon previous experience of using such facilities), they have been subject to disturbance and aggravation from paparazzi and members of the public.”
It was claimed the Coles needed to stay fit and healthy because of their jobs, but that press intrusion made it impossible for them to have an outdoor pool.
He wrote: “The press is particularly keen to photograph intimate episodes in the couple’s lives and being bedecked in swimsuits exposes the couple to greater likelihood of intrusion, particularly from overflying aircraft equipped with sophisticated photographic equipment.”
The couple cited a planning proposal submitted by Eric Clapton, who was allowed to build a taller fence at his home to stop being harassed, but the planning inspector said the circumstances were different.
A Guildford Borough Council spokeswoman said: “The planning inspector clearly found that the proposed extension was a disproportionate addition when compared to the size of the original property, amounting to inappropriate development in the green belt.
“We are pleased that our original decision, which was based on policies to protect the green belt, was upheld. Planning appeal costs are considered at the time of the appeal and neither the appellants nor the council sought costs in this case.”
