'Unneighbourly': Neighbours fight Scotland captain Andy Robertson's plans for a swimming pool

But one of his neighbours has lodged an objection to the bid - claiming it will invade their privacy and cause a noise disturbance.

And the local water company United Utilities has asked for talks if they want to use the water supply.

In an objection letter sent to the local authority, the neighbours said described as "unreasonable and unneighbourly" and would funnel a "noise nuisance" to their bedrooms and living rooms.

The single storey extension featuring Scotch buff sandstone and brick was said by the designers to be of a similar design to another nearby, with and featured a flat roof and mirrors.

The designers said trees on the site while protected under planning regulations, were of "poor quality" and the intention was to replace them with "a more coherent design of better quality".

But a neighbours objection said: "The proposed development would be substantially intrusive and significantly reduce the privacy of the rear garden and of both the ground and first floor rooms at the west and north-west sides due to the right angle orientation of the proposed development.

"The large sliding glass doors/ windows proposed in this application would run the entire length of the east-facing side of the extension and provide a direct viewpoint into the rear of our property and the entirety of our back garden.

"Considering the Design and Access Statement concedes that this new pool would create an increased amount of 'noise nuisance', it is unreasonable and unneighbourly that this recognised disruptive noise should be directed exclusively towards our property through the channelling effect that such glass doors/ windows would create in directing all 'noise nuisance' from the proposed pool out eastwards.

The 27-year-old Scotland star moved into the five-bedroom home after buying it for £3.3 million last year.

He first applied to Cheshire East Council for planning permission to create the pool enclosure and changing facilities in April.

The neighbours said that if the project is allowed to proceed both sides of the extension should have brick walls rather than floor to ceiling glass windows.

The neighbours concluded: "We object to this proposed development in its current form and trust that proper consideration will be given to the substantial adverse impact on our property which would occur unless a revision to the current plans is made to deal sufficiently with the concerns."

But the designers said a solid brick wall is proposed for the boundary "to create privacy and eliminate the potential noise nuisance from the new pool".

"The wall is topped with a stone coping to match the existing design," they said.

"A sedum roof is proposed to provide an attractive appearance from upper floor windows in the host property and neighbouring properties, provide an opportunity for enhanced biodiversity, and to control surface water run off."

Local water company United Utilities has told the council which is still considering whether to give planning permission, that the site should be drained on a separate system with foul water draining to the public sewer and surface water draining "in the most sustainable way".

They said no development should start until a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the council.

And the water company said that the council should ensure that an agreement should be reached in advance to ensure that the swimming pool can be properly emptied without damage to the local water environment.

And it added: "If the applicant intends to obtain a water supply from United Utilities for the proposed development, we strongly recommend they engage with us at the earliest opportunity. If reinforcement of the water network is required to meet the demand, this could be a significant project and the design and construction period should be accounted for. "