A homeowner who poured £400,000 into creating what he hoped would be his family’s “forever home” says he may now be forced to demolish it — because the property is allegedly just 0.5m (1.6ft) too wide.
Idnan Choudhry, 31, is locked in a long-running planning dispute with Walsall Council in the West Midlands and could be ordered to bulldoze the five-bedroom house after a four-year battle.
The father of three was granted planning permission in 2022 to build a replacement home and insists the work was carried out in line with drawings approved by his architect.
But once construction was already under way, Mr Choudhry said an enforcement officer visited the site after a neighbour lodged a complaint.
He claims his family were living at the property during the build, leaving him with little option but to press ahead and make the structure safe by putting a roof on the house.
Mr Choudhry was later informed the development breached a 45-degree planning angle by around half a metre, meaning the home sat too close to a neighbouring property. By then, he says, much of the building had already been completed.
His applications for retrospective planning permission have been rejected twice, despite his claim that changes were made to address concerns, including scaling back the dormer.
Mr Choudhry has pledged to keep challenging Walsall Council’s decision, saying he has already spent £35,000 on solicitors and fresh architectural advice in an effort to save the family home.
The quantity surveyor said: ‘We’re being made out to be criminals but we have tried to do everything by the book. I know some people buy up land and throw things up but we went through all the proper processes, or so we thought.
Idnan Choudhry’s house in Walsall, West Midlands, which he may be forced to tear down
Mr Choudhry was told he had breached a 45 degree angle by half a metre – making his property too close to one of his neighbours
‘What has happened over the last four years has caused me and my family a great deal of anxiety – it has been a nightmare.
‘I don’t know why the council is penalising people who have been granted planning permission and they have just kept moving the goalposts.’
The long-running saga began four years ago when incorrect plans for the home were first approved.
The permission was subject to a condition that a 45-degree line of sight from neighbouring windows wouldn’t be breached.
But the drawings submitted with the application indicating the line of sight were later found to be inaccurate in what Walsall Council described as an ‘oversight’.
The authority then served a Breach of Condition Notice but later withdrew it as it could not be lawfully implemented because of the error.
An enforcement case remains open and under investigation because of the continued unlawful development.
Last year, Mr Choudhry submitted his first retrospective planning application in a bid to have the replacement home regularised.
The application received five objections and was eventually refused on the grounds of causing ‘unacceptable levels of harm’ to a house on the road, being visibly incongruous, and having a front boundary that impacts visibility for pedestrians and drivers.
Planning document images for the development of Mr Choudhry’s property
Internal planning document photos showing the inside of the father-of-three’s home
The father, who also lives with his parents, said the family paid £337,000 for what was previously a three-bedroom house.
‘We bought this house back in 2020 with the intention of turning it into our forever home,’ he said.
‘We have since spent around £300-400,000 and a lot of love trying to make it look nice ever since.
‘I’ve spent around £30,000 on the side just fighting the council on this and hiring architects and lawyers.
‘We carried out the first lot of work under permitted development before putting in a full planning application in the summer of 2021.
‘In March 2021 the council came on site and we ran through everything with a planning officer, who was lovely and helpful, and everything seemed fine.
‘There was a lot of meticulous communication and after a final amendment we had full planning permission in April 2022.’
The homeowner claimed that after work began, the family received a visit from an enforcement officer following a complaint from a neighbour.
‘They started taking all kinds of measurements and said to halt the work – all the while we had no roof,’ he said.
‘We were currently living in it and I couldn’t cancel the roof, so I went ahead and had that put on to keep my family safe and dry.
‘Then we were told we had breached the 45 degree angle by half a metre – but by this point most of the house was completed.
‘So I hired a second architect to try and get the house altered to what was acceptable.
‘I made all the alterations I thought they wanted doing and reduced the house in size, I knocked down walls and pillars, and I actually made it smaller than they were requesting.
‘I thought it was all for the betterment of the house and I was complying to what they wanted even though I felt it was unfair.’
In March this year, Mr Choudhry submitted a further retrospective application in an effort to regularise the three-storey home.
In response to the latest application, 22 comments were received in support of the application and five comments in objection.
Walsall Council said the latest application does not overcome the previous reasons for refusal and introduced further ones.
They include poor visibility between drivers and pedestrians, significant breach of the 45-degree rule, inaccurate existing site plan, a top heavy and incongruous appearance, and loss of privacy for neighbours.
The homeowner said: ‘On June 30 we had a notice of demolition come through and they were refusing permission again.
‘I’ve engaged fully with the council every step of the way and I will continue to fight this to save my home.
‘I’ve contacted the ombudsman and hired lawyers, and I won’t give up.
‘It has caused an extreme amount of stress and I’m being faced with aggressive tactics and all over ridiculously small measurements.’
Detailing their reasons for refusal previously, Walsall Council said: ‘While submitted plans show the reduction of the first floor by 0.54m to the shared boundary with No.6, which would minimise the current impacts to this neighbour regarding loss of light and shadowing and sense of enclosure from dominance of this nearest built elevation, we are unable to impose the necessary planning condition to secure this on the basis that this current application cannot be supported in relation to other un-resolved matters.
‘This is compounded by the as-built larger dormer which contributes to the impacts to this neighbour.
‘The as-built dormer measures 2.6m high, 3.6m wide and 3.9m deep in contrast to the approved dimensions of 2.4m high, 3m wide and 3.5m deep.
‘This results in the dormer being more visible and prominent in the street-scene which contributes to an overly dominant top-heavy and incongruous appearance to the detriment of the local character of area.
‘The front boundary wall and gates would obstruct visibility between drivers and pedestrians, particularly given that the access is located on the inside of a bend, where visibility is already limited.’
The Daily Mail has contacted Walsall Council for comment.
