Miss Wales finalist STILL doesn't have the keys to her £6m Omaze house nearly three months after winning it as planning row rumbles on
A former Miss Wales finalist is still waiting to receive the keys to her £6million Omaze house nearly three months after winning the draw.
Vicky Curtis-Cresswell, 38, said it had felt like 'an enormous weight had been lifted' when she was the lucky winner of Larkfields in Norfolk in February.
The mansion home was the most expensive ever given in a UK prize draw with the competition raising £4million for BBC 's Comic Relief.
But Omaze's so-called notorious 'curse' appears to have struck again as the home, modelled on the luxurious seaside villas in the Hamptons in Long Island, is at the centre of a planning fallout.
The tennis court and swimming pool, much lauded in Omaze's spiel to promote the draw, reportedly do not have planning permission.
While the pastel blue panelled fronted home has been built larger than was permitted, the BBC reported.
North Norfolk District Council launched an investigation in March when a member of the public complained it had not been built to the submitted blueprints.
Omaze said it had submitted a pre-application to the local authority and would be filing a retrospective planning application.
The fundraising firm said issues with the home had not been found when checks and surveys were carried out before it had been bought.
A spokesman said: 'Omaze will transfer ownership of the property to the winner once all planning matters are resolved.'
If the retrospective planning application is refused the council could order the company to make changes to the property so it is in line with the original plans.
MailOnline has contacted Omaze for further comment.
Ms Curtis-Cresswell, who bought her winning ticket for just £10, and who has never owned her own home before, is planning to sell it in order to buy a house in her native Wales.
Jamie Minors, managing director of local estate agents Minors and Brady, said last month the planning problems would 'massively affect the chance of sale, as some people will be put off and will not want to buy it. It could also affect the value'.
'Selling it will definitely be more difficult and challenging, as solicitors will definitely advise against it,' he said.
Ms Curtis-Cresswell currently lives with her husband, Dale, 41, and young daughter at her in-laws' three-bedroom house in Wales and the family were looking for their own rental property when news of the win came in.
Sun loungers by the outdoor pool give a view over spectacular scenery by the north Norfolk coastline
The kitchen at the imposing house, which was built in the style of architecture found in Cape Cod and the Hamptons, boasts integrated appliances, a US-style fridge and an island with seating for four people
'Our lives changed forever and we became multi-millionaires,' said Ms Curtis-Creswell, who entered the Miss Wales competition in 2008 and won Most Driven Contestant.
'I was absolutely flabbergasted, my sister-in-law burst out crying. It was a mixture of pure shock and joy.
'Like a lot of people, it's fair to say times can be tough. We both work so hard but things can still feel stretched some months. Winning this house feels like an enormous weight has been lifted.
'It's crazy. One week, we're worrying about our old car breaking down, the next thing we've got a £6 million house.'
A £250,000 cash prize came with the 5,000 sq ft house, which also has a summer house, all-weather AstroTurf tennis court and access to a secluded pontoon and has £165,000 worth of furnishings.
The property could earn an estimated £5,500 per month if rented out - but Ms Curtis Cresswell added: 'I think we'll sell it to release the money and buy another amazing house somewhere in Wales.
'We'll be having a big party in Norfolk before we sell up. We can't wait to invite our friends and family.'
A North Norfolk District Council spokeswoman said: 'We are waiting for an application to be submitted by the owners to try and regularise the current breaches of planning control.
'We are expecting an application to be submitted by the end of this month.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Daisy May Cooper and Alan Carr among stars to quit popular ITV quiz show
The ITV quiz show Password - which is based on the US quiz show of the same name - is set for a major shake-up in its second series. Team captains Alan Carr and Daisy May Cooper will not be returning due to conflicting schedules. Instead, a revolving roster of celebrities is expected to replace the duo in future episodes. Stephen Mangan, star of The Green Wing and The Split, will continue to host the show, which offers a £10,000 prize. The next series of Password is scheduled to begin filming in July and air later this year.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Inheritance tax is heinous, but avoiding it could be a bigger disaster
They say nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, but I propose to add a third to the list: investors doing everything imaginable to avoid taxes. The bigger the bite HMRC wants, the heavier the hustle to shield hard-earned assets. Thanks to Labour dragging pensions into the inheritance tax net, it is now a stampede. Yet the avoidance path conceals huge pits I've watched investors fall into throughout my 50 years managing money. Estate planning is wonderful, but too often, sensible planning leads to tax considerations dictating investment decisions. This raises risk, reduces returns and can hit your planned inheritance much harder than any tax rise. Consider popular ways people now seek to shield pensions from inheritance tax: investing in Aim shares is one, with the double benefit of stamp duty exemption and business property relief. Enterprise Investing Schemes (EIS) are another, and business property relief schemes letting you access unlisted companies is a third. All these sprang from past governments' investment incentives, hoping to spur entrepreneurship and startups. A fine aim. But pursuing a strategy aimed at these incentives solely for tax benefits aren't the sunlit uplands some promise. You don't need me to tell you Aim has a long history of scandals and failures alongside those select success stories that graduated to the main market. Or that its stocks are Britain's tiniest, with a median market capitalisation of £15m. Or that FTSE's Aim All Share is down nearly -30pc since 2000, while the FTSE All Share has soared over 275pc. Astronomical missed returns are a dear price to pay for tax relief, particularly one whose relief is rapidly diminishing – Aim stocks' BPR relief drops from 100pc to 50pc next year. EIS and BPR schemes carry another risk: overloading on unlisted companies. These sport the veneer of stability and, in EIS's case, supposedly high growth potential. They are billed as a way for normal folks to invest in venture capital and reap big rewards when a startup hits it big, but the reality is those are needles in a haystack of hard-to-value, illiquid investments. Winners aren't guaranteed – untraded doesn't mean stable. It just means fewer pricing points, hiding the inherent behind-the-scenes volatility. That is illiquidity – a bug, not a feature. You risk being unable to sell when you really need to without suffering a steep discount. Aim companies aren't categorically horrid. Some are fine, even great. EIS and BPR can also be fine tools, in certain situations. But it all depends on your broader goals and time horizon, which gets us to the root of the problem. Your fixation on tax steers you away from why you invested in the first place. Done right, long-term investing is about picking the correct asset allocation – the blend of stocks, bonds and other securities – for reaching your goals over your investment time horizon. Your goals are the primary purpose for your money, usually growth, cash flow or some combination of the two. Your time horizon is how long your money must last, usually your lifetime – clearly longer if inheritance tax is a concern. Throughout history, stocks and bonds have done a marvellous job of delivering the growth and cash flow people need, given a sufficiently long-term horizon and reasonable withdrawals. Stocks deliver abundant long-term growth, despite bear markets and volatility along the way, while bonds cushion expected short-term volatility and support cash flow with interest. British and global listed stocks and bonds are liquid – easy to sell in a pinch to cover expenses both expected and sudden. When tax avoidance takes supremacy, will you let it steer you from whichever liquid asset allocation aligned with your goals and needs? If your pension is loaded with Aim shares, EIS or BPR schemes to reduce inheritance tax, it risks not delivering the returns needed to support your cash flow later on. Aged poverty is a real pain. Or maybe your pension ends up worth vastly less for your heirs, after tax, than if you had opted for a simple blend of stocks and bonds. If you have a sudden expense, your pension may not be liquid enough to cover it. Then what do you do? Borrow? Don't forget, tax policy is a whack-a-mole game. Pensions were exempt from inheritance tax until they weren't. After halving Aim relief in 2024's Budget, Labour capped BPR last year. Some ministers floated scrapping Aim relief altogether. What then? If you focus on tax optimisation, you may find yourself needing to make big changes again. And again. And again. Changes cost money. Taxes are certain in general, but the specifics are shape-shifting. When your goals and time horizon determine your strategy, there are fewer moving parts. You can build a diversified strategy with a long history of delivering what you need, while taking sensible steps to reduce tax exposure where available. Tax avoidance is nice. Liquidity, predictability and reaching your goals? Nicer.
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
28 Years Later director Danny Boyle reveals unexpected 'nightmare' of filming NAKED zombie scenes for the horror movie starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Ralph Fiennes
Director Danny Boyle has admitted that it was a 'nightmare' filming naked zombie scenes for the highly acclaimed movie 28 Years Later due to one challenge. Danny, 68, stepped back into the director's chair to helm the 'terrifying' horror, written by Alex Garland, 23 years after the pair's first film, 28 Days Later, hit cinemas. After the long-awaited film hit screens, Danny reflected on the challenges he faced while filming the movie, which stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Ralph Fiennes. He revealed they needed to take extra care not to have 'naked' actors on the set because they had strict rules in place to protect the film's child star, Alfie Williams. Danny told PEOPLE: 'I mean, if you're recently infected [with the zombie virus], you'd have some clothes, but if you've been infected for a long time, the clothes would just disintegrate with the way that you behave 'We never knew [about rules governing nudity on set when there's a child present] going in, it was a nightmare.' In order to still film scenes featuring naked zombies while adhering to the safeguarding rules, Danny revealed the actors had to wear prosthetics. 'Interestingly, because there was a 12-year-old boy on set, you're not allowed for anybody to be naked, not really naked, so they look naked, but it's all prosthetics,' he shared. 'So it's like: ''Oh my God,'' so we had to make everybody prosthetic genitals.' Danny said he was keen to push boundaries with the elements of nudity and gore in the film, and he's glad studio bosses were supportive of his plans. He added to Variety: 'I think one of the wonderful things about horror is that you're expected to maximize the impact of your story. Everybody wants to do that with a drama, with the romance, whatever. 'But with horror, it's obviously gonna be brutal, some of it. What we loved was setting it against an innocence that's represented by the various children in it, and also the landscape, the beauty of the landscape, the nature. 'Having those two forces stretches your story as far as you can go, if you maximize them.' The first-ever movie of the series, 28 Days Later, followed Jim (Cillian Murphy), who awakes from a coma to discover Britain has been plagued by a terrible pandemic known as the Rage Virus, which turns those affected into murderous zombies. Although he didn't star in the second instalment and won't be in the new release, Cillian will make a brief appearance in the upcoming fourth instalment - 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. The fourth film features Danny once again as a producer while Nia DaCosta directed, and it has already been shot ahead of its planned January 2026 release. However, the Trainspotting moviemaker hopes to be back in the directing chair once again if a fifth final movie is given the green light. The series was created by Alex Garland, 55, who wrote the screenplays for all the films except for the second instalment, 28 Weeks Later. Critics have already weighed in on the third zombie horror movie in the franchise, 28 Years Later, and it has received rave reviews. Two decades on from the 2002 original, which saw a deadly virus plague London, the new movie finds a group of survivors living on the secluded island of Lindisfarne. Rotten Tomatoes has handed the movie an impressive 94 per cent critic approval rating after rounding up the thoughts of more than 91 film reviewers. The Daily Mail's Brian Viner was incredibly impressed after watching the series' latest gory instalment, dubbing the movie the 'best post-apocalyptic horror-thriller film I have ever watched'. He wrote: 'With the terrifying and electrifying 28 Years Later, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland have delivered the best post-apocalyptic survivalist horror-thriller film I have ever seen. Which sounds like limited praise, yet it's a much more crowded field than you might think.' Robbie Collin in The Telegraph handed 28 Years Later a rave review, with the critic scoring the 'terrifying' horror movie five stars out of five. 'Garland employs a strain of peculiarly British pulp humour - very 2000 AD, very Warhammer 40,000 - to undercut the ambient dread,' he wrote. 'And flashes of Arthurian fantasias and wartime newsreel footage (as well as a pointed double cameo for the now-felled Sycamore Gap tree_ serve as regularly nudges in the ribs as he and Boyle ty with the notion of a 21st century British national myth.' The film also received five stars from The Times critic Ed Potton, who hailed Jodie Comer's 'impressive as always' performance. The journalist wrote: 'Is this the most beautiful zombie film of them all? It's hard to think of another that combines such wonder and outlandishness with the regulation flesh-rending, brain-munching and vicious disembowelment.' The BBC 's Caryn James gave the highly-anticipated film four stars out of five as she dubbed Ralph Fiennes's performance 'scene-stealing'. '28 Years Later is part zombie-apocalypse horror, part medieval world building, part sentimental family story and - most effectively - part Heart of Darkness in its journey towards a madman in the woods,' she wrote. 'It glows with Boyle's visual flair, Garland's ambitious screenplay and a towering performance from Ralph Fiennes, whose character enters halfway through the film and unexpectedly becomes its fraught sole'. Empire also awarded 28 Years Later four stars out of five, with journalist Ben Travis writing: '28 Years Later is ferocious, fizzing with adrenaline. The mainland thrums with a pervasive sense of immediate danger; when the infected arrive (and, do they arrive), it is breathlessly tense.' Reviews in The Guardian and The Independent were slightly more critical, however, with journalists scoring 28 Years Later with three stars. Peter Bradshaw wrote in The Guardian: 'A little awkwardly, the film has to get us on to the mainland for some badass action sequences with real shooting weaponry - and then we have the two 'alpha' cameos that it would be unsporting to reveal, but which cause the film to shunt between deep sadness and a bizarre, implausible (though certainly startling) graphic-novel strangeness.' While The Independent 's Clarisse Loughley wrote: 'Even if 28 Years Later feels like being repeatedly bonked on the head by the metaphor hammer, Boyle's still a largely compelling filmmaker, and the film separates itself from the first instalment by offering something distinctly more sentimental and mythic than before.' 28 Years Later has become the best horror ticket pre-seller of 2025, with the film expected to gross around $30million in its first weekend. 28 YEARS LATER: THE REVIEWS The Daily Mail (FIVE STARS) Rating: With the terrifying and electrifying 28 Years Later, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland have delivered the best post-apocalyptic horror-thrill I have ever seen. The Times (FIVE STARS) Rating: Jodie Comer is impressive as always in the latest instalment of the post-apocalyptic series The Telegraph (FIVE STARS) Rating: This transfixingly nasty zombie horror sequel, starring Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes, is Danny Boyle's best film in 15 years The Evening Standard (FIVE STARS) Rating: Jodie Comer, young Alfie Williams and Ralph Fiennes have a monsters' ball in this supercharged third outing for the 28 Days Later series BBC Culture (FOUR STARS) Rating: Alex Garland and Danny Boyle have reunited for a follow-up to their 2002 classic. It has visual flair, terrifying adversaries and scene-stealing performance from Ralph Fiennes. Empire (FOUR STARS) Rating: The sequel we needed is both the film you expect, and the one you don't. There's blood, but also real guts and brain and heart - visceral cinema soaked in viscera. The Guardian (THREE STARS) Rating: This tonally uncertain revival mixes folk horror and little-England satire as an island lad seeks help for his sick mum on the undead-infested mainland. The Independent (THREE STARS)
