We HATE our neighbour’s ‘Grand Designs’ mansion – he put extra storey on top ‘without warning us’…we’ve got no privacy

NEIGHBOURS say they hate a ‘Grand Designs’ mansion built on their street – and claim they weren’t warned before an extra storey was built on top.

The three-storey property sits in an exclusive street in Old Hunstanton, Norfolk.

swns

swns

swns

In the original planning application, the neighbours say there was no mention of an extra storey.

Shocked and betrayed to see one built, they accused West Norfolk Council of acting fraudulently.

However, this accusation has since been rejected.

Michael Oldham, one of the angry neighbours, reported the council to Action Fraud, a national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime.

The neighbours insisted the council misrepresented the original plans and falsely claimed the extra floor was always supposed to be there.

Action Fraud then passed the case on to the National Fraud and Intelligence Bureau.

Following a council meeting, West Norfolk Council’s monitoring officer rejected all suggestions of fraud.

WNC said the dispute revolve around the interpretation of the previously approved planning application, rather than a fraudulent act.

Homeowner, Henry Middleton admitted some “small alterations” were made to his “Grand Designs” mansion.

However, he originally made a retrospective planning application to WNC in the hope of gaining approval for the design of the house after it was built differently to the approved plans.

This week, councillors met to decide the fate of the home.

The issue of fraud was raised at the planning committee meeting by Patricia Eckersall, who lives nearby, who highlighted that multiple previous council reports described it as two-storey property.

Tensions were running so high in the village that it prompted councillor Tom de Winton, who represents Old Hunstanton, to attack the behaviour of both the applicant and villagers at the meeting.

He said: “People have been rude and disrespectful to the council. I do not like officers being bullied.”

In the ensuing discussion, there continued to be confusion as to the manner in which the home had been built differently.

Officers explained that a staircase leading to the first floor balcony had been built two metres away from where was originally approved.

Some areas of land had also been raised by 50cm.

The changes led to concerns that neighbours are overlooked and overshadowed by the property.

It was proposed that foliage could be planted to create privacy but this move was dismissed by councillor Vivienne Spikings.

She said: “To try and remedy this with a green fence is poor planning. I do not agree with this.”

Councillor Martin Storey added that there were about 21 differences to the original plans.

He said: “We do not want to be taken for a ride.”

After a lengthy debate, councillors voted to refuse the application.

This means enforcement officers will now investigate what action to take.

This could include the homeowner being forced to rebuild the home as per the approved plans.

Mr Middleton may also choose to appeal against the decision, which would then mean the Planning Inspectorate – the government department that presides over planning disputes – would make a judgement.

Terry Parish, chairman of the committee, called for the home to be built to the original plans and welcomed any challenge to their decision.

He said: “I do not want to see any wriggle room on this. I would be more than pleased to write a letter to the inspector.”