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
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The tax raids that mean your holiday beers are cheaper than British pints
British beer drinkers have been hit with bigger tax raids than anywhere else in Europe over the past six years, The Telegraph can reveal. At 61p per pint of lager, beer excise duties in the UK are among the highest in Europe, and are 9p more than in 2019, according to data from the Tax Foundation. The rate is three times higher than in France, Italy and the Netherlands, which both tax around 19p per pint, and Germany, where consumers pay just 4p. The tax raid contributes to the typically much lower prices holidaymakers will pay for beer on the continent this summer. Whilst the UK has increased duties considerably, most of Europe has kept theirs effectively frozen, with Portugal increasing levies by 4p and France by just a single penny. Exemptions made for draft pints served in pubs reduced duties to around 55p per pint, still almost three times the EU average. Hospitality business leaders warn the combined cost of beer taxes, VAT and Labour's employer National Insurance hike could ultimately see the cost of a pint soar further. The industry has lost 84,000 jobs since the 2024 Autumn Budget, according to the trade body UK Hospitality. Kate Nicholls, the chairman of UK Hospitality, said: 'Beer duty in the UK has been among the highest in Europe, along with our 20% VAT rate for hospitality. 'These taxes and other recently increased business costs, such as the change to employer NICs, will mean that the price of a pint will stay high and potentially become higher, and pubs and bars will have no choice but to pass on costs to customers.' In the Autumn Budget, Rachel Reeves increased the amount employers pay towards National Insurance from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent. The price of a pint has soared by over 28 per cent across the UK since January 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics, with a variety of factors to blame, including inflation and tax. The average price of a pint now stands at £4.83, but this would be just £4.22 without alcohol excise duties, or £4.28 if served in a pub. The figures also hide extreme regional variations, with the average price of a pint in west central London now topping £7.32, according to CGA, a market research company specialising in hospitality. In the EU, minimum beer excise duties are set by Brussels, but the vast majority of EU member states chose to go above this. In Finland, consumers pay roughly 90p per pint of 5 per cent-strength lager, by far the highest in Europe. This is followed by the UK on 61p, Ireland on 55p and Sweden on 48p. At the bottom of the list are Spain, Luxembourg, Germany and Bulgaria, which all charge 4p per pint. The Tax Foundation has monitored duties levied by states since 2019 and just seven states have increased taxes at 1p or higher over the period. Alcohol duties were reformed in 2023, basing them on the strength of the alcohol. This meant tax on certain drinks, such as wine and spirits, increased considerably. Taxes on draught pints were not changed in an attempt to keep prices below supermarket levels. Ms Reeves also cut duties on pints in pubs in the Autumn Budget by 1.7 per cent. But bottled beer served in pubs or bought at supermarkets has not been exempt from tax changes, according to the Tax Foundation's analysis. A spokesperson from HM Treasury said: 'Beer is more affordable in the UK than in much of Europe and in last year's Budget we supported pubs by cutting 1p off duty on draught pints.'
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves abandons inheritance tax raid on grieving military families
Rachel Reeves has abandoned plans to impose new inheritance tax changes on the grieving families of military personnel. The Chancellor has dropped a proposal to tax death in service payments, which are tax-free lump sums given to the families of deceased Armed Forces members. Changes unveiled in the October Budget would have made off-duty death in service payments subject to inheritance tax for the first time, if not going to a spouse or civil partner. It would have meant that children or partners of unmarried servicemen and women would have had to pay death duties on the benefit from April 2027. The Treasury has been forced to abandon the proposals after pressure from Armed Forces organisations, which said the move would have a 'corrosive' effect on trust among servicemen. The Government said that following its consultation, it had decided not to go ahead with the reform. 'Another U-turn' by Labour Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, told The Telegraph that he welcomed the decision, 'even though it represents another U-turn by this Labour Government'. He added: 'It was always unfair that married partners of service personnel would be exempted from these changes to inheritance tax liabilities, while unmarried partners, in long-term relationships, would not. 'We highlighted this to ministers, on behalf of service families on multiple occasions and I am pleased for their sake, that common sense has now finally prevailed.' It comes after Ms Reeves's department had to water down proposals to scrap the universal winter fuel payment and reforms to the welfare system. The Government said: 'From 6 April 2027 all death in service benefits payable from registered pension schemes will be out of scope of Inheritance Tax, regardless of whether the scheme is discretionary or non-discretionary.' The HMRC document said that the new plans were 'in line with the broader policy objective of removing inconsistencies in the Inheritance Tax treatment of different types of pension benefits'. Labour 'standing up' for service personnel? Death in service payments are usually a lump sum paid to named beneficiaries of a worker who dies while on the company payroll. It is typically the equivalent of four-times the late individual's salary. For members of the Armed Forces, these are paid whether or not the individual was 'on duty' at the time of their death. Those who die 'on duty' were to continue to benefit from a separate tax-free arrangement on their death in service payments from 2027. But a military worker who dies while technically 'off duty', such as by sudden illness or accident, would have been stung by the proposed inheritance tax rules. Maj Gen Neil Marshall, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, told The Telegraph in January that military servicemen and women are unable to put the payment into trust, because they are part of the Armed Forces pension scheme. Labour sought to shore up support from the Armed Forces community at last year's general election, declaring the party would be 'standing up' for service personnel and veterans. The party was successful in winning over voters from military backgrounds, most notably winning in Aldershot, the site of a major garrison, for the first time in more than a century.
The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
Major update on fake reviews crackdown as industry regulator warns half of companies not complying with the law
MILLIONS of shoppers will be better protected from sneaky fees and fake reviews after a major investigation from the industry watchdog. In April new guidance to crack down on hidden booking fees, admin costs and fake reviews was introduced by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). 1 As part of the rules companies had to include all mandatory fees in the total headline price of an item, rather than feeding them through at different stages of the booking process, which is known as 'drip pricing'. They also needed to crack down on glowing fake reviews of products and services. The investigation is important as around 90% of shoppers base what products they buy on online reviews, with £217billion spent in the online retail sector in 2023. A three month adjustment period was introduced to give businesses the chance to understand the new rules and make any necessary changes. This period ended earlier this month and the CMA has now completed a review of the websites of more than 100 businesses. It checked to see if businesses had published policies on their websites to stop fake reviews or explained to customers what their policy on fake reviews is. For example, they need to explain if they pay customers or give them discounts to write a positive review. They should outline if they ban fake reviews or make it clear to customers if they allow them by labelling them. The investigation found that more than half of these businesses could be failing to comply with the CMA's guidance. Some of the companies had no policy in place to ban fake reviews, and the CMA also could not find a policy setting out their approach to the reviews. Others had policies in place but they were not clear, incomplete or difficult to understand. Rocio Concha, Which? director of policy and advocacy, said: "Fake reviews can trick consumers into buying products and services that are duds, while taking business away from honest firms playing by the rules, so it's very concerning to see so many firms still failing to comply with regulatory guidance." She added that the regulator needs to do more to prevent fake reviews. She said: 'Based on this investigation, the regulator must get tougher with firms, using these new powers to send a clear message that these types of consumer rip-offs won't be tolerated." How to save money shopping online Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals a few ways you can save money on your next online shop. Use cashback websites - use cashback websites like TopCashback and Quidco where you can get free cash on top of any qualifying purchases. Compare prices - make sure you compare prices to ensure you're getting the best deal. You can use websites like Trolley, Price Spy or Price Runner. Factor in delivery costs - plenty of retailers charge you for delivery, even standard delivery, so make sure you read the small print before putting an order in. Some will waive any delivery charges if you spend over a certain amount. The CMA is writing to the 54 firms that failed to meet its guidance to explain that they must have measures in place to prevent fake reviews from appearing on their websites. They also need to have policies that are clear and easily accessible. The companies will also need to review their guidance to see if any changes to their approach and policies are needed. Any company that is sent a letter from the CMA will need to respond and explain what changes, if any, they have made or are making in order to comply with the law. .
