A bitter row has erupted between a Labour councillor and his subsequent door neighbours who’ve accused him of secretly constructing an workplace on their land.
Slough Borough Council’s Ejaz Ahmed had utilized for retroactive planning permission after constructing a home extension that was completely different to plans that had already been authorized in 2018.
The important thing distinction within the new plans was the incorporation of an present brick shed that straddles the boundary of his and his neighbour’s land right into a facet extension for a residence workplace.
Planning paperwork and footage of Mr Ahmed’s extension seem to point out that the brand new workplace does creep onto the land of his subsequent door neighbours nevertheless the councillor has maintained that the brick shed got here with the property 17 years in the past.
Google road view photographs of the property earlier than the extension additionally present a transparent divide the place the brand new roofed extension now sits.
A bitter row has erupted between a Labour councillor and his subsequent door neighbours who’ve accused him of secretly constructing an workplace on their land
A brand new extension incorporates an workplace which extends over the boundary of the neighbouring home
Aerial images of the 2 properties present the clear overlap between the homes
Google road view photographs of the property earlier than the extension additionally present a transparent divide the place the brand new roofed extension now sits
Usually in circumstances the place a brand new growth will impinge on the land of a neighbour, permission have to be sought upfront within the type of a ‘certificates B’ notification.
Nonetheless, Mr Ahmed’s neighbours Kirandeep Kaur and Amandeep Turner declare that no such certificates was given to them previous to the event being constructed.
Mr Ahmed maintains one was served by way of the publish.
They lodged a grievance to Slough Borough Council’s planning committee claiming that the outbuilding ‘by no means belonged to Mr Ahmed.’
Chatting with the MailOnline, the couple stated: ‘The property boundaries are bordered by a straight line which he has clearly constructed over. You may even see it within the plans he submitted.
‘He has prolonged a field on his facet that we did not have entry to.
‘That they had initially requested him to demolish it for the extension and when he submitted once more, he included it within the boundaries of his land.
‘He has stolen our land. We’re pondering of taking it to court docket as it’s a civil matter.’
Councillor Ahmed stated he had accomplished the extension earlier than launching a profession in native politics and strongly denied constructing on his neighbour’s land.
He informed MailOnline: ‘To make clear, we have now not constructed something that encroaches on our neighbour’s property, and any such claims are totally unfounded.
‘The brick shed has been a part of our property for the reason that home was initially constructed, seemingly within the Nineteen Fifties or 60s.
‘I bought the property over 17 years in the past, and the shed has remained unchanged, with unique entry maintained by us all through.
‘We’ve clear proof to assist this. Till the present proprietor moved in final yr, there have been no disputes concerning the shed’s placement.
‘I perceive the Each day Mail visited the world, the place it’s evident that I’ve not constructed something on the neighbour’s facet, nor would I’ve any intention of doing so.
‘Boundary traces on this a part of Wexham are generally irregular, a characteristic seen alongside our road.
This week, councillors voted to approve Mr Ahmed’s retrospective utility unanimously
Planning paperwork and footage of Mr Ahmed’s extension seem to point out that the brand new workplace does creep onto the land of his subsequent door neighbours
The councillor has maintained that the brick shed got here with the property 17 years in the past
Kirandeep Kaur and Amandeep Turner had beforehand sought to construct a single storey rear extension with a two storey facet which Mr Ahmed complained about
Mr Ahmed refuted claims he had prolonged his property too far
‘The present proprietor bought their property final yr, absolutely conscious that the shed was already in place. Since then, they’ve demanded its demolition, utilizing more and more aggressive language.
‘Regardless of this, we engaged in mediation by way of their consultant, however their strategy shifted after studying of my function as a councillor, seemingly as a part of an effort to tarnish my repute.’
The 2 neighbours had beforehand warred over a distinct extension with Mr Ahmed lodging official complaints in opposition to his neighbour’s utility on the council’s planning portal.
Kirandeep Kaur and Amandeep Turner had sought to construct a single storey rear extension with a two storey facet.
The appliance additionally confirmed plans for a newly fashioned gate and entry on the positioning of the contested outbuilding.
Nonetheless Mr Ahmed complained claiming the event would hamper mild and privateness.
He additionally immediately referenced the contested outbuilding, writing: ‘This space of my property is a present storage outbuilding.
‘The exterior define of that is unique and we have now internally insulated. The facet additionally has a newly fashioned gate and entry. Once more this may not be doable with out displaying my property wall demolished.’
This week, councillors voted to approve Mr Ahmed’s retrospective utility unanimously.
A council authorized officer stated: ‘Any non-public property matter is a civil matter between the events as a result of anybody can apply for planning permission for any piece of land.’
