EXCLUSIVE Family blast 'jealous' neighbours who reported them to council over 'monstrosity' extension...but their new plans could make locals even angrier
Homeowner Aysha Khanom was made to pay £2,000 after a retrospective planning request for a large porch at the semi-detached property she shares with her family in a desirable area of Oldham was rejected.
Neighbours claimed the porch, which featured two 2.4metre high columns and a tiled roof, was 'more in keeping with the Roman pillars of [giant shopping complex] the Trafford Centre', a 'hotel' or a 'mosque'.
Other comments in objections lodged with Oldham council claimed it 'sticks out like a sore thumb', was 'very ugly, an eyesore' and was 'harmful to the amenity, character and appearance of the area'.
Now Ms Khanom's son, Mohammed, 21, has claimed that some of the neighbours who objected were simply 'jealous' of their large home.
'We moved here from a bad area. We made some money and built the house of our dreams - that's the sum of it,' he said.
'Some people are just jealous because our home makes theirs look small. Personally, I wouldn't even care if my neighbour painted his house yellow.
'There's nine of us living here, so we need a big home for our family.
Mohammed also revealed that the family has plans to turn another property they own into an AirBnB - a move that could make some locals even angrier.
AirBnBs in residential areas have frequently proved controversial among neighbours due to issues such as increased noise and rows over parking.
Mohammed said: 'We've found some land nearby and plan to build an even bigger property because we need more space and we're going to turn this one into an Airbnb.'
He added that the family owned other property, a restaurant and a car hire company in Dubai.
It is believed the porch at the property on Chadderton Hall Road was the final straw for many long-standing residents who already believed it was being 'overdeveloped'.
Planning approval was previously given for a dormer, a two-storey side and rear extension and a 'children's play house' which, they claimed, served no purpose.
The council. however. initially refused to grant permission for the porch in December 2022.
A report called it an 'overly dominant and incongruous addition to the existing property' which would cause a 'detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene, largely owing to its prominence and unduly conspicuous appearance'.
Ms Khanom appealed and submitted revised plans - changing the colour of the pillars from white to black - in March 2023, but they too were refused.
A further appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate and when she defied an enforcement notice - extended to December, last year - to either remove the porch or reduce its size, the council took her to court.
She admitted breaching the enforcement notice at Tameside Magistrates' Court last month and was ordered to pay £1,050 costs, a £500 fine and £200 victim surcharge.
Alternative plans for the porch, which limit its size, have been approved by the council and the two large pillars have since been removed and replaced with wooden supports.
Many disgruntled neighbours believe Ms Khanom should have been prosecuted earlier for her family's 'arrogant' stance and attempts to 'ride roughshod' over planning rules.
One man, who didn't wish to be named, said: 'The porch was the final straw for me.
'They'd already had permission for a massive extension to the house, which comes a long way out and is not in keeping with the character of the area or nearby homes, and a children's play house despite no kids living there.
'The original porch had two, massive pillars - people were comparing them to the ones you see at the Trafford Centre.
'It was a monstrosity and everyone from round here was really unhappy with it – 23 objections were submitted to the council.
'But they were really arrogant and refused to take the porch down and the council should have prosecuted them sooner.
'The next step should be for the council to carry out an inspection of the play house and see what that's really being used for.'
Another neighbour Ian Rees, 69, said: 'They're not good neighbours.
'They had lovely trees at the back of the house but when they built the huge extension they ripped them all down.
'At the end of the day, you don't want trouble with your neighbours - there's no need for it.
'But the porch they put up was massive.
'It jutted out a long way and the builders left a lot of rubbish piled up on a grassy area of the road.'
Another resident said he'd objected to the porch because it 'wasn't it keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood'.
He added that there was 'nothing malicious' in neighbours' objections and it was important for the council to 'show consistency' in planning decisions.
But not all neighbours were upset by the porch.
One woman said she 'didn't get involved' in the objections while one man, who lives next door, said she'd 'never had any issues with Ms Khanom's family.
'I get on well with all of them,' he said.
'There's a good mix of people around here but I think some of the older residents worry about some things too much.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
Why is River Island in trouble?
The future of River Island is in the balance ahead of a crucial court ruling on the fashion chain's restructuring British chain - which once collaborated with Rhianna - revealed in June that it intends to close 33 shops in the UK, putting hundreds of jobs at risk, and also wants its landlords to cut rents at a further 71 said more people shopping online and higher costs to run stores had contributed to heavy financial losses. Reports have suggested it could collapse if its plans are not accepted by the High Court next month, although the firm said it was "confident" they will what has gone wrong for the High Street stalwart? Catherine Shuttleworth from Savvy Marketing said River Island's challenges were "significant" but they were shared by the wider retail believed the fashion chain had been affected by several factors including having its stores in the wrong place and facing rising costs."River Island has maintained an expensive portfolio of stores at a time when costs are rising and footfall is falling," she told the BBC."Many older stores find themselves in parts of town which may have been busy 20 years ago but now find themselves on the periphery."Known for affordable and stylish fashion, brands such as River Island and Topshop dominated High Street fashion from the early 2000s to the mid first River Island store opened in 1988, after being originally founded in 1948 under the Lewis and Chelsea Girl brand before being family-owned retailer currently has 230 shops, employs about 5,500 people and was one of the first big UK High Street names to launch online in the late recent years have proved tough. Ben Lewis, chief executive of River Island, said last month that a sharp rise in "the cost of doing business" over the past few years had "only added to the financial burden".Intense competition in fashion retail, not only from the likes of Boohoo, but also from Chinese giants such as Shein and Temu, have also added to its most recent set of accounts revealed a £33.2m loss, with sales down 19%. Creditors will start to vote on River Island's restructuring plan on 4 August, and the High Court will decide whether to approve it on 7 the plans are rejected, then it is understood the retailer will revise its Island says the plan is a "proactive measure" to place it on "a firm footing"."We have been having positive conversations with key stakeholders and are confident that we will achieve approval of the plan in the next few weeks," a spokesperson for the retailer Sherrard, managing director of Label Sessions, said River Island was in trouble now because of actions not taken years ago."What's very apparent here is that from landlords and suppliers, to investors, no one believes in River Island enough to do it some favours," he told the Sherrard also said River Island was missing the mark when it comes to keeping loyal customers."Customers know it, but they don't know why they should care about the brand," he added. Can it make a comeback? Mr Sherrard said River Island may need more time to turn its fortunes around."River Island's leadership team clearly think that if they can just get a few more months, they can turn the ship around, but the best businesses know that you always have a lot less time than you think before change hits the market," he Farrell, fashion editor at the Who What Wear website, told the BBC that River Island's fate depends on how it chooses to rebrand."Times are tough for High Street brands that need to feel premium to stay afloat." she current best performing brands are those that "don't rely on buzzy microtrends", she added, but provide "interchangeable pieces rather than seasonally targeted drops"."As we wait with baited breath for the return of Topshop to see just how well the nostalgia factor will support an affordably-priced, younger-skewing brand in the years to come, the concern here for River Islands longevity is who its key market is." Additonal reporting by Connie Bowker
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves will have to ditch key party manifesto pledge, IMF warns
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) commended Rachel Reeves' overall economic strategy but issued a warning regarding the UK's limited fiscal headroom. The IMF indicated that this lack of financial flexibility might compel the Chancellor to abandon key manifesto pledges. Suggested measures from the IMF included potentially increasing taxes on working people, replacing the state pension triple lock, or introducing charges for NHS services for higher-income users. The IMF also identified the ongoing impact of Donald Trump's tariffs as a challenge for the UK economy. Rachel Reeves responded by asserting that the government's decisions are fostering economic recovery and that their plans are designed to tackle inherited economic challenges.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Consumer confidence weakens among Britons amid tax rise fears
Consumer confidence weakened slightly in July amid concerns from shoppers that they could face potential future tax rises, according to new figures. GfK's long-running Consumer Confidence Index dropped one point to remain in firmly negative territory at -19 points. Researchers suggested the figures showed that consumers are currently 'sensing stormy conditions ahead' amid wider uncertainty in the economy. The drop was shallower than expected by economists, who had predicted a reading of -20 for the month. The research found that its measure from consumers' view of the general economic situation for the country over the past year dropped one point to -44. Expectations for the general economic situation over the next 12 months also decreased by one point for the month. Meanwhile, the index for consumers' views on their personal finances remained steady but was still in negative territory. Nevertheless, there was a rise in the study's savings measure and people continued to seek to benefit from elevated interest rates. Neil Bellamy, consumer insights director at GfK, said: 'The key measures on personal finances, the economy and purchase intentions are flat in July, and many will conclude that consumers are in a cautious wait-and-see mood. 'But the data suggests that some people may be sensing stormy conditions ahead. 'With speculation growing over possible tax rises in the autumn budget, and price pressure contributing not just to higher inflation already but also to the likelihood of worse inflation to come, the news is worrying.' It came as figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that retail sales bounced back 0.9% last month as record hot weather boosted sales of food and drink.
