Owners fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs for building house illegally

The house built illegally

The house built illegally

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

A house built without planning permission has been demolished and its owners fined £5,000.

Owners Slot UK Ltd pleaded guilty at Thames Magistrates’ Court to failing to comply with an enforcement notice and fined £5,000, with £1,458 costs.

The house was built in Onra Road, Walthamstow, and the developer applied for retrospective planning permission, but this was refused by Waltham Forest Council in 2011.

Slot UK Ltd appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but it agreed with the council's decision.

Enforcement action was taking by the council in September 2012 requesting the house be demolished by January 2013.

Slot UK Ltd missed the deadline and knocked down the house last month, resulting in legal action by the council and the subsequent fine.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:15am Tue 26 Nov 13

UKIP-local says...

But when the Council approves development of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homes on Green Belt against the wishes of local people, what happens? They get rewarded with tax payers' money, higher council tax and who knows what future spin-offs from the developer.

The house shown in the picture ought not to have been built without consent, but actually it did not look particularly out of place compared with some developments we have seen and will see in ever greater numbers around the district over the next five years.
But when the Council approves development of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homes on Green Belt against the wishes of local people, what happens? They get rewarded with tax payers' money, higher council tax and who knows what future spin-offs from the developer. The house shown in the picture ought not to have been built without consent, but actually it did not look particularly out of place compared with some developments we have seen and will see in ever greater numbers around the district over the next five years. UKIP-local
  • Score: -4

9:18am Tue 26 Nov 13

John J C Moss says...

UKIP-local wrote:
But when the Council approves development of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homes on Green Belt against the wishes of local people, what happens? They get rewarded with tax payers' money, higher council tax and who knows what future spin-offs from the developer.

The house shown in the picture ought not to have been built without consent, but actually it did not look particularly out of place compared with some developments we have seen and will see in ever greater numbers around the district over the next five years.
I am no fan of this Council's planning policies, but can you please cite one example of LBWF approving development in the Green Belt, or is this just UKIP scare-mongering?
[quote][p][bold]UKIP-local[/bold] wrote: But when the Council approves development of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homes on Green Belt against the wishes of local people, what happens? They get rewarded with tax payers' money, higher council tax and who knows what future spin-offs from the developer. The house shown in the picture ought not to have been built without consent, but actually it did not look particularly out of place compared with some developments we have seen and will see in ever greater numbers around the district over the next five years.[/p][/quote]I am no fan of this Council's planning policies, but can you please cite one example of LBWF approving development in the Green Belt, or is this just UKIP scare-mongering? John J C Moss
  • Score: 9

9:54am Tue 26 Nov 13

Billy Yerache says...

So builder gets 3 years rent of about 30K gets fine 5k by time it has gone.

Sounds like there is a lot of incentive to break rules then.
So builder gets 3 years rent of about 30K gets fine 5k by time it has gone. Sounds like there is a lot of incentive to break rules then. Billy Yerache
  • Score: 1

11:15am Tue 26 Nov 13

skealey says...

Billy Yerache wrote:
So builder gets 3 years rent of about 30K gets fine 5k by time it has gone.

Sounds like there is a lot of incentive to break rules then.
I suspect it cost more than £30K to build the house in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Billy Yerache[/bold] wrote: So builder gets 3 years rent of about 30K gets fine 5k by time it has gone. Sounds like there is a lot of incentive to break rules then.[/p][/quote]I suspect it cost more than £30K to build the house in the first place. skealey
  • Score: 15

12:29pm Tue 26 Nov 13

Billy Yerache says...

skealey wrote:
Billy Yerache wrote: So builder gets 3 years rent of about 30K gets fine 5k by time it has gone. Sounds like there is a lot of incentive to break rules then.
I suspect it cost more than £30K to build the house in the first place.
I suggested that if it was rented out which it probably was, the builder has has three years of rent out of it at least.

The cost of building is a different matter but if they have used cheap foreign builders like Chinese Construction. It looks like it has been built out of blockwork and rendered which is not the most expensive way.
[quote][p][bold]skealey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Billy Yerache[/bold] wrote: So builder gets 3 years rent of about 30K gets fine 5k by time it has gone. Sounds like there is a lot of incentive to break rules then.[/p][/quote]I suspect it cost more than £30K to build the house in the first place.[/p][/quote]I suggested that if it was rented out which it probably was, the builder has has three years of rent out of it at least. The cost of building is a different matter but if they have used cheap foreign builders like Chinese Construction. It looks like it has been built out of blockwork and rendered which is not the most expensive way. Billy Yerache
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Tue 26 Nov 13

mdj says...

Many worse dwellings have been built illicitly in this borough in recent years without attracting enforcement action, despite repeated complaints. Many of the old terraces in the borough have blank end walls like this one quite legally, unattractive though it may be. Could it be the location of this building that explains the different approach?
Many worse dwellings have been built illicitly in this borough in recent years without attracting enforcement action, despite repeated complaints. Many of the old terraces in the borough have blank end walls like this one quite legally, unattractive though it may be. Could it be the location of this building that explains the different approach? mdj
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 27 Nov 13

G_Whiz says...

Good, common sense action by the Council - Obviously we need rules. If the council accepted planning for this, it would set a terrible precedent.

It's nothing to do with the wall or where it is.
Good, common sense action by the Council - Obviously we need rules. If the council accepted planning for this, it would set a terrible precedent. It's nothing to do with the wall or where it is. G_Whiz
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 28 Nov 13

myopinioncounts says...

Look on 'Rightmove' at a house in Exmouth Road Walthamstow (3 beds -£400,000). The photo shows that next door is a shanty built extension over a garage. How comes this has not been demolished ?
Look on 'Rightmove' at a house in Exmouth Road Walthamstow (3 beds -£400,000). The photo shows that next door is a shanty built extension over a garage. How comes this has not been demolished ? myopinioncounts
  • Score: 1

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