Latest news with #loftconversion
The Sun
3 days ago
- General
- The Sun
I'm being forced to tear down my loft conversion – my neighbours call it a ‘monstrosity' but I'm going to fight back
A WOMAN who spent thousands renovating her Victorian home has been ordered to tear down her loft conversion after it was branded a "monstrosity". Rozia Hussian, 43, built a large extension on top of her 125-year-old terraced property in Worcester. 4 4 Records show the mid-terraced house was bought for £100,000 in 2003 and pictures show the outside was in a shabby condition with peeling paint and chipped brick work. Over the last four years, the three-bedroom house on Wyld's Lane, has undergone a complete makeover and according to Rightmove it is now worth up to £320,000. A wall and intercom system has been installed at the front of the house while a large dormer was built on top of the two-storey house. Mrs Hussain now faces having to demolish the dormer after Worcester City Council rejected her retrospective planning application. The council stated: "By virtue of its size, design and position, the addition of the large box dormer to the front of the property results in detrimental impact and creates significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing property and wider street scene in which it sits. "The dormer at Wylds Lane is much more visually intrusive than the approved, well-designed, more subtle addition." Mrs Hussain, who owns a newsagents in the city, said: "I don't know anything about the planning application being rejected. "I don't think it looks too big." Her neighbours have been mixed in their reaction to the council decision. One said: "I think the house looks much better now. Our pretty town has become a ghetto plagued by machete-wielding yobs "It was in a terrible state a few years ago but it now looks modern and clean. "The dormer doesn't really bother me but I think some people are concerned because it looks right onto their properties." Another resident, who lives nearby in a similar property, said: "A few years ago I applied to have a dormer on my house but it was refused. "The reason the council gave was because it would not be in keeping with the area or sympathetic to the age and heritage of the property. "In my view I just think that it would be grossly unfair if this woman was allowed to have a large dormer on her property when I was not. "I mean the extension is very big. It looks like an executive box you get at Premier League football grounds. "When my friend visited he asked what the monstrosity was on one of the houses so it's clearly noticeable to people." Mrs Hussain has three months to tear down the dormer or face enforcement action. A city spokesperson said: "An enforcement notice was served on 17 June that comes into effect on 17 July. "This requires the applicant to remove the dormer and restore the roof or adapt the current dormer so that it complies with the planning permission given. "They have three months to carry out the works. "They have until 17 July to appeal against the notice." What to do if you're in a property row with the council Know your rights Review your tenancy agreement, lease, or ownership documents to understand your rights and the council's responsibilities. Submit concerns in writing Raise any issues formally via email or letter. A written record will help if the matter needs to be escalated later. Use the council's complaints process All councils are required to have a formal complaints procedure. Details are typically available on the council's website. Seek independent advice Organisations such as Citizens Advice and Shelter offer free guidance on housing disputes and may be able to assist with legal next steps. Contact the Housing Ombudsman If the council fails to resolve the issue, complaints can be escalated to the Housing Ombudsman Service, which is free, impartial, and able to investigate unresolved housing matters. Keep detailed records Maintain copies of all correspondence, photographs of any issues (such as repairs), and notes from phone calls to support your case. 4
Daily Mail
20-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Can I pay builder in cash and could my bank stop me withdrawing £40,000 over eight weeks?
I've recently had planning permission to build a loft conversion and roof terrace at my home. The builders are about to start, but the man in charge - who heads the business - has asked if he could be paid half the funds in cash. He says his team prefers cash so he pays them that way. However, I suspect their motivation might be something to do with tax - although this is just a theory and I have no proof. Would I potentially be at risk of aiding and abetting tax evasion by paying them in cash or am I within my rights to pay them as they wish? After all, it is legal tender. They have also asked for me to pay the cash in weekly installments over eight weeks to help their cashflow. Given the total cash sum will be £40,000, that will mean I have to withdraw £5,000 each week. I'm assuming I can't just go to the cash machine and do this and will need to visit a bank branch to do so. But won't the bank clerk ask questions about what the cash is needed for and if so what should I say? Surely honesty is the best policy and paying builders in cash is a perfectly normal practice. Also my only experience of visiting a bank branch was akin to a hospital waiting room - it took over an hour to be seen and I felt rather sorry for all the staff. So out of interest, what are the least busy times of day to visit a bank branch? Ed Magnus of This is Money replies: Unless the builder has told you they want cash to evade tax, there is nothing illegal about paying them in cash. It is their responsibility to declare this to the taxman, not yours. The bigger headache for you is having to withdraw this cash on a weekly basis. Bank branches can have long and slow queues. The best time to visit will depend on the local branch you intend to visit. Luckily, Google often shows information such as popular times and typical waiting times for stores, including bank branches. It tends to appear below your regular business information on Google Maps and Search. On your first trip to the bank, you could also ask the bank clerk about the quietest times to drop in for future visits. You are correct that withdrawing £5,000 from an ATM will almost certainly not be possible to in one day unless you have multiple current accounts with different banks. Most banks have daily ATM limits. How much you can withdraw will depend on your bank and what type of account you hold. For example, Barclays has a daily limit of £300 on its standard current accounts but customers are able to set any limit between £0 and £500. Premier banking customers can withdraw £1,000 each day - but again have the power to set that limit to anything between £0 and £2,000. If you opt to make regular cash withdrawals from an ATM then be aware that your bank may contact you to verify the transactions are yours. But just remember banks will never ask you to move money from your account - if you receive a call asking you to do so, it will be a scam. If you decide to withdraw cash by visiting your local bank branch, they may well ask about the purpose of your withdrawal given it may be seen as unusual and a necessary check to guard against fraud or money laundering. Again, you are perfectly within your rights to say you are withdrawing cash to pay a builder for home renovations. Some banks have been known to be quite difficult and may request proof of the building works in the form of an invoice. However, most should be more relaxed and not require any documentation. For expert advice we spoke to Angela Kerr, a director at property advice website HomeOwners Alliance and Chun Wong, head of dispute resolution at Hodge Jones & Allen. Is it okay to pay builders in cash? Chun Wong replies: Paying cash for goods and services is on the face of it not illegal. It is only a criminal offence under the Criminal Finances Act 2017, if you knowingly aid or abet (i.e. facilitate) the tax evasion. The builders have provided you with an explanation and you have no evidence to believe otherwise. You may wish to check if they are VAT registered and if so they should provide you with a VAT invoice or receipt for the monies and work done. You should also check that they have insurance in the event that there are any issues with the works and you need to bring a claim for poor workmanship and any consequential losses, given the value of the works being undertaken is substantial. You should check whether on completion of the works there will be a guarantee or warranty issued. Angela Kerr adds: You're not the first person to toil over how to pay tradespeople. When we commissioned a YouGov poll with the Federation of Master Builders to find out more about this it revealed a third - approximately 5.3million - homeowners confessed to paying cash to avoid VAT costs on home improvements and make their project more affordable. What about withdrawing cash from a bank? Chun Wong replies: The amount of cash that can be withdrawn in one go will depend on the bank's own terms and conditions. If an explanation is requested (usually for fraud prevention) you should tell them the true reason – that you are paying for substantial works to your house Should they pay the builders in a different way? Angela Kerr replies: There is no standard approach to how, when and what builders can charge and what's the best payment schedule to protect theirs and your interests, so everyone muddles through. But 50 per cent sounds a lot upfront but firms do ask it for bigger projects. But doing a significant home improvement project like yours and paying cash with no audit trail in the form of an invoice, receipt or bank transfer trail is a big risk. You'll end up with no proof that they have done the work – and therefore no guarantee that if things go wrong they will come back to put things right. And having an agreement in writing and a receipt or payment trail is essential if you ever need to take a builder to the small claims court. So I'd recommend sitting down and pulling together a contract. Rics provide domestic project friendly building contracts. Or at the very least get payment terms agreed in writing. Rather than big lumps of cash in arbitrary weekly payments, could you negotiate a smaller percentage up-front and then push for payments according to milestones or stages of the project. For example, at completion of the opening up works, completion of steel installation etc. Save a good percentage for final payment on completion and once any final snagging is done. That would be more meaningful and ensure they have an incentive to get on with the work. Best mortgage rates and how to find them Mortgage rates have risen substantially over recent years, meaning that those remortgaging or buying a home face higher costs. That makes it even more important to search out the best possible rate for you and get good mortgage advice, whether you are a first-time buyer, home owner or buy-to-let landlord. Quick mortgage finder links with This is Money's partner L&C > Mortgage rates calculator > Find the right mortgage for you To help our readers find the best mortgage, This is Money has partnered with the UK's leading fee-free broker L&C. This is Money and L&C's mortgage calculator can let you compare deals to see which ones suit your home's value and level of deposit. You can compare fixed rate lengths, from two-year fixes, to five-year fixes and ten-year fixes. If you're ready to find your next mortgage, why not use This is Money and L&C's online Mortgage Finder. It will search 1,000's of deals from more than 90 different lenders to discover the best deal for you.
Daily Mail
10-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Our neighbour built an extension without permission but has been allowed to KEEP it... now people will do whatever they want
Furious neighbours have blasted a decision to approve an 'out of character' loft conversion that overlooks their homes. A four-bedroom residential property in Slough, currently used as a care home, had retrospective planning permission for a set of extensions rejected by the council in October last year. Planning chiefs said the work 'would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the surrounding area'. But owners, Macadamia Support, appealed the decision and the Planning Inspectorate has given it the green light. Locals are up in arms and claim they will lose privacy and will have put up with noise from more patients disturbing their peace and quiet. They also believe the decision will spark a free-for-all with residents now free to build whatever they like. One furious neighbour told MailOnline: 'This decision just gives everyone permission to ignore what the council says. 'It's just not on.' Building work for the single storey side and part single part double rear extension, and hip to gable loft conversion began in 2021 and was completed in November 2023. However, there were no necessary planning permissions in place, with a retrospective application only submitted in September last year - nearly a year after the works were done. Images of the extension show the hip to gable conversion with windows looking down the sides of neighbouring properties on both sides. One local said: 'The initial architectural plans did not include any windows on the first floor adjacent to my hallway landing. 'I am formally objecting to all side windows that overlook my property, as they directly face my hallway. The frequent switching of lights during the evening hours disrupts my sleep when my bedroom doors are open on the first and second (loft) floor. 'The newly installed windows provide a view into my hallway, resulting in disturbances from both noise and light. 'I am also objecting to all loft windows facing the side of my property. Before this construction commenced, there were no windows facing the side of my property. 'Furthermore, this property is currently being utilised as a care home, for which it lacks the necessary licensing. 'The ongoing noise and disturbances associated with this operation prevent me from opening my windows or enjoying my garden at certain times of the day. 'Additionally, the presence of a large industrial bin is visually unappealing, and the parking situation created by staff and visitors poses safety hazards.' Another neighbour said he worried the move would 'set a precedent' for other homes in the area to go ahead with major building works without planning permission. He told MailOnline: 'It's the precedent that it sets. 'It will make everyone else on the road think they can build what they want without the correct permissions and ignore what the council says. 'The dormer that they built deviates a lot from the initial plans. 'It is not in character with the area. It's a nice, quiet residential area. 'There is a house of a few doors down from there that did a similar extension but with the correct permissions and it is more in keeping with the area. 'And it's the fact that they've got people in there with disabilities etc. You can hear a lot of loud screaming in the garden. 'It can get noisy, but its not the residents' fault. 'No one was consulted on its use as a HMO or care home, or over who is going to live in it. 'It's not so bad to formally complain, but even if we did I don't know what would actually happen.' Questioning the Planning Inspectorate decision to approve the application, he said: 'It was refused for a reason. 'I'd like to know why all of a sudden it's okay now. 'What's the point then of having planning enforcement?' The owners had previously obtained planning approval in November 2020 for the erection of a '6m deep single-storey rear extension', and in April 2021 was issued a certificate of lawful development for a 'hip to gable loft conversion' with two side windows and a front velux window. In June 2021 they then obtained permission on appeal for the 'construction of single storey side extension and part single/part double storey rear extension' as well as the demolition of the garage. However, the building work was said to have 'deviated considerably' from the plans presented in the initial approved planning applications. The council's refusal notice read: 'The development by reason of its design with bulky and overdominant roof form is not in keeping with the original property and fails to reflect the character of the host dwelling that results in a poorly designed enlargement. 'As a result of cumulative additions, the development fails to respect, enhance, be subservient and in character with the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the surrounding area and the Residential Area of Exceptional Character (RAEC), where side dormers are not common.' The street is deemed as a RAEC which are identified to 'protect' areas with unique design qualities. According to Slough Council's website, two storey/first floor side extensions in RAECs 'will not normally be permitted in order to prevent terracing, maintain important spacing between existing buildings and to retain the character of the original building'. However, the Planning Inspectorate found that the works carried out on the building were just 'an alternative amalgam' of the previous planning permissions the applicants had obtained. The Planning Inspectorate's planning decision read: 'The development has undeniably altered the form and shape of the dwelling's original roof. 'Its hipped form has been subsumed by a front facing mono-pitch that masks large, tile clad dormers to each side which sit only marginally up from the eaves and which span the full depth of the original dwelling. 'These both sit behind a false ridge line, which runs parallel to the road, and merge with each other to form a square flat crown roof that sits marginally taller than the dwelling's original ridge height. 'The two-storey extension to the rear projects the original height and form of the dwelling with a conventional hipped roof.' However, it ruled that the changes were not 'visually intrusive nor harmful to the character or appearance of the appeal property or wider area'. It read: 'When seen directly face on from London Road, the dwelling has the appearance of a traditional gabled form with a subordinate retained hipped feature over its original two-storey front bay. 'This merely reflects hip to gable changes that are evident on other properties nearby. 'Despite the marginal increase to the ridge height, the front roof appears neither disproportionate nor out of keeping within the street scene.' While it noted concerns that the residential property was being used as a care home, it noted that at the time the works were carried out it was being used as a detached family house. A Slough Borough Council spokesperson said: 'The council is always disappointed when a Planning Inspector finds differently to the council's Planning decisions. 'However, the homeowner exercised their right to appeal the council's decision to refuse the application and in this case the Planning Inspector came to a different conclusion. 'Officers clearly felt that the harm associated with the development warranted refusal however the Planning Inspector did not agree with us on this occasion.'
