We could be evicted from our new home because it is 30 inches too HIGH

By Milo Pope and Stewart Whittingham

08:54 May 25, 2024, updated 09:17 May 25, 2024



A couple are being kicked out of their home after the council ordered it to be demolished because it was just 75cm too high.

The smart detached development in Prestwich, Bury, is set to be demolished after planning chiefs also said the owner had built the four-bedroom property five feet in the wrong direction.

It is currently rented out by married tenants, who now have to look for a new home.

We only found out yesterday,” the distraught husband told MailOnline.

‘It was a shock. My wife spoke to the landlord. He said he’s going to appeal, so we don’t know what’s going to happen.”

The property in Prestwich, Greater Manchester, is currently rented out by married tenants who will now have to find a new home
Municipal officials ordered this new-build house (left) to be demolished because it was built only 75 cm too high

Landlord Martin Wright has been ordered by Bury Council to demolish the house within five months.

Planners at the authority said there had been a ‘breach of planning control’.

Plans for the two-bedroom house in Prestwich, Greater Manchester, were originally approved in 2018, but the council launched enforcement action in 2023 after it had already been built and occupied.

The council’s enforcement notice requires the house to be demolished and permanently removed, along with all garden structures and retaining walls.

Click here to change the format of this module

All resulting materials must be removed from the site to restore the land to its previous condition.

An appeal was lodged, but Mr Wright was told in April that he has six months to demolish the house and restore the land to its original state.

The council claims the building has been moved forward approximately 145cm and is therefore not in the position shown on the approved plans.

The enforcement notice states: ‘As a result of the above, the car park has a depth of 4,550mm (455cm) instead of 6,000mm (600cm) as shown on the approved plans.’

The available space does not meet the parking needs. The two-storey bay window at the front of the building has been omitted and therefore does not comply with the approved plans.’

The height of the building has been increased by approximately 30 inches (750 mm) and the front steps are not positioned according to the approved plans. The southern facade is not satisfactory because windows have been added on the first and second floors.’

The council added that the building ‘amounts to unauthorized development and constitutes a material breach of planning control’.

The house on Butterstile Lane was also found to have been built 1.5 meters in the wrong direction
The council claims the building has been moved forward approximately 1,450mm and is therefore not in the position shown on the approved plans.
The husband who lives in the property said: ‘We only found out yesterday. It was a shock. My wife has spoken to the landlord
Bury Council said the building ‘amounts to unauthorized development and constitutes a material breach of planning control’

The notice added: ‘The building, as constructed, is detrimental in location, layout, lack of parking, appearance and poor design.’

In his appeal, urban planning inspector Peter Willows says that ‘the house now being built deviates from the permitted house on a number of points’.

He added: ‘I feel the building being constructed is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.’

Mr Willows increased the time allowed for demolition from 60 days to six months.

He said: ‘As the property is now apparently occupied, it is necessary to allow an appropriate period during which the residents can seek alternative accommodation.’

Given this change in circumstances since the notice was given, the council now accepts that a longer period for compliance is appropriate. The appellant proposes a period of six months.’

In my view, that would strike the right balance between the needs of the occupants of the property and practical considerations on the one hand, and the desirability of ensuring that the breach of planning control is remedied without undue delay on the other. .’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *