Leytonstone woman fined £1,000 and ordered to demolish 'bed in shed' accomodation in her back garden

Rogue landlord fined over 'bed in shed'

The cement out-building

Work is underway to demolish the illegally-occupied building

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A rogue landlord has been convicted of building a ‘bed in a shed’ property in her garden and renting it out illegally.

Ghazala Bostan, of Harold Road in Leytonstone, was last month fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,850 at Thames Magistrates’ Court for breaching planning rules and ignoring an order to demolish it.

A Waltham Forest Council spokesman said: "The prosecution not only send out a message to unscrupulous landlords looking to rent out entirely unsuitable buildings for habitation, but they also show that the Council Planning Enforcement and Housing teams will work together where appropriate to bring the full force of the law to bear."

The property is now in the process of being demolished.

 

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Mon 3 Mar 14

Techno3 says...

There are loads of these greedy landlords in the borough who have been packing tenents into every square inch they can find. Council inaction is now legendary. Far from the prosecution sending out any message to unscrupulous landlords to stop, the small fine compared to the hugh sums earned and the infrequncy of these prosecutions merely confirms that the Council Planning Enforcement and Housing teams do very little to bring the full force of the law to bear.
There are loads of these greedy landlords in the borough who have been packing tenents into every square inch they can find. Council inaction is now legendary. Far from the prosecution sending out any message to unscrupulous landlords to stop, the small fine compared to the hugh sums earned and the infrequncy of these prosecutions merely confirms that the Council Planning Enforcement and Housing teams do very little to bring the full force of the law to bear. Techno3
  • Score: 21

1:55pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Villagecranberry says...

Techno3 wrote:
There are loads of these greedy landlords in the borough who have been packing tenents into every square inch they can find. Council inaction is now legendary. Far from the prosecution sending out any message to unscrupulous landlords to stop, the small fine compared to the hugh sums earned and the infrequncy of these prosecutions merely confirms that the Council Planning Enforcement and Housing teams do very little to bring the full force of the law to bear.
True and it is the tip of the iceberg, there exists hundreds but unless a formal complaint is made the council will take no action and they are not proactive in tackling the problem otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: There are loads of these greedy landlords in the borough who have been packing tenents into every square inch they can find. Council inaction is now legendary. Far from the prosecution sending out any message to unscrupulous landlords to stop, the small fine compared to the hugh sums earned and the infrequncy of these prosecutions merely confirms that the Council Planning Enforcement and Housing teams do very little to bring the full force of the law to bear.[/p][/quote]True and it is the tip of the iceberg, there exists hundreds but unless a formal complaint is made the council will take no action and they are not proactive in tackling the problem otherwise. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 11

2:27pm Mon 3 Mar 14

cynicalsue says...

Wow, one closed down and a small fine. That's a real deterrent isn't it?
Wow, one closed down and a small fine. That's a real deterrent isn't it? cynicalsue
  • Score: 15

4:24pm Tue 4 Mar 14

myopinioncounts says...

Case : 2013/0780, Full planning, Ganesh Gnanamoorthy, Property : 16 CARISBROOKE ROAD, E17 7EF - seen on the LBWF planning site.
This application unbelievably was approved. It claims to be a garden workshop. The size is 7m x 5m and 3m high. The plan clearly shows that it is divided down the middle creating two totally separate spaces with a front door and 2 windows to each half. It is visible over the fence from Mission Grove as you pass by on the W12 bus. I have no doubt that it is or will become 2 'homes'.
I cannot believe that the planning committee were taken in by the 'workshop' claim and either demanded it's demolition or at least warned the applicant that it cannot be used as living accommodation .
Perhaps the local councillors or MP might like to investigate?
Case : 2013/0780, Full planning, Ganesh Gnanamoorthy, Property : 16 CARISBROOKE ROAD, E17 7EF - seen on the LBWF planning site. This application unbelievably was approved. It claims to be a garden workshop. The size is 7m x 5m and 3m high. The plan clearly shows that it is divided down the middle creating two totally separate spaces with a front door and 2 windows to each half. It is visible over the fence from Mission Grove as you pass by on the W12 bus. I have no doubt that it is or will become 2 'homes'. I cannot believe that the planning committee were taken in by the 'workshop' claim and either demanded it's demolition or at least warned the applicant that it cannot be used as living accommodation . Perhaps the local councillors or MP might like to investigate? myopinioncounts
  • Score: 5

6:34pm Tue 4 Mar 14

westside_o says...

Have the same 2 doors down from me.
Brick built shed like structure that the owner said was for "storage" purposes.
It's double glazed (frosted window in what must be a bathroom area) central heating and exterior wall lighting.

I sent an e-mail to the Waltham Forest planning dept. months ago but have had no reply.
Guess they are busy !
Have the same 2 doors down from me. Brick built shed like structure that the owner said was for "storage" purposes. It's double glazed (frosted window in what must be a bathroom area) central heating and exterior wall lighting. I sent an e-mail to the Waltham Forest planning dept. months ago but have had no reply. Guess they are busy ! westside_o
  • Score: 5

7:30pm Tue 4 Mar 14

mdj says...

Do these buildings pass muster if they are only occupied by members of the family in the main building? This one does at least appear solidly built. Most of us could give instances of where blind eyes have been turned by enforcement officers for years.
Do these buildings pass muster if they are only occupied by members of the family in the main building? This one does at least appear solidly built. Most of us could give instances of where blind eyes have been turned by enforcement officers for years. mdj
  • Score: 4

9:49pm Tue 4 Mar 14

westside_o says...

mdj wrote:
Do these buildings pass muster if they are only occupied by members of the family in the main building? This one does at least appear solidly built. Most of us could give instances of where blind eyes have been turned by enforcement officers for years.
The owner has a shop in the front that has ceased trading and does not live on site.
It's 12" by 12"
Maybe suitable for a small family of Pigmys.
Sorry, don't know if there's a PC.descriptive for them.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Do these buildings pass muster if they are only occupied by members of the family in the main building? This one does at least appear solidly built. Most of us could give instances of where blind eyes have been turned by enforcement officers for years.[/p][/quote]The owner has a shop in the front that has ceased trading and does not live on site. It's 12" by 12" Maybe suitable for a small family of Pigmys. Sorry, don't know if there's a PC.descriptive for them. westside_o
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree