Mother forced to remove double-decker bus from driveway
A woman who parked a double-decker bus on her drive to restore it and turn it into a cafe is being forced to move it after her neighbours complained.
Wendy Salmon, 55, put the vehicle outside her home in Camberley, Surrey, temporarily to renovate it.
But the mother-of-two has received a community protection notice (CPN) and been told to remove it by June 20 after neighbours said it was 'ruining the ambience' of the cul-de-sac.
She has accused neighbours of 'rallying' the others on the street against her by complaining it was an eyesore.
Ms Salmon, who runs a pub, bought the double-decker bus for £6,000 from a friend's brother in March 2023 and parked it on her private driveway to convert into a cafe to host parties and events.
She claimed neighbours started to complain almost immediately and that she was visited by a member of Surrey Heath Borough Council's Corporate Enforcement Department after the bus was reported as abandoned.
The council initially confirmed via email that there were no planning restrictions and no further action would be taken. However, it contacted her two weeks later to say a further complaint had been received.
'I received a community protection notice from the council,' said Ms Salmon. 'It said that if I can't comply with the order I could get a fixed penalty notice, be prosecuted, or the bus could be destroyed or disposed of.
'The warning had an impossible timescale, making it extremely challenging to get the bus ready for an MOT to make it legal to drive. A few months after this, the community protection notice arrived. I had no choice but to appeal.'
Ms Salmon appeared in court but dropped the appeal and agreed to remove the bus from her drive.
She said: 'The wording of the CPN was that it was 'upsetting the ambience of the local area'. Now no one speaks to me. All my neighbours completely ignore me. I'm being treated like a criminal even though I've never committed a crime in my life.
'The whole thing is just ridiculous... There is no way it is impacting or bothering them. It is just snobbery, pure and simple.
'I don't know what the future holds, but I do not like my previously loved home, I don't want to leave the house as I feel bullied, neighbours no longer speak to me or my partner. I have had over a year of sleepless nights, stress and anxiety. My dream of restoring the bus is no longer something that I want to do.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Man who sent racist social media message to footballer banned from all games
A man who sent a 'vile and disgusting' racist message to a professional footballer on social media has been banned from attending any matches for three years, police said. Harry Dunbar, 20, from Fareham, Hampshire, sent racial slurs via Instagram to Christopher Wreh, following an FA Cup match between Tamworth and Tottenham Hotspur on January 12. When interviewed by police, Dunbar admitted sending the message because he had lost a bet, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary said. Police said Wreh had come on as a substitute for Tamworth in the game. When he later checked his Instagram, he found he had received a message from an account he did not know called 'Dunztagram'. Shocked, he posted a screenshot of the message including the username and then shared it on his social media. 'After an amazing day today, this is the last thing I expected to see when I opened Instagram,' he wrote in the post. 'Nevertheless, thank you for all the support today. Fans were unreal.' This post was viewed more than 1.7 million times, and Wreh was contacted and sent personal messages by others who identified the account holder as Dunbar, who was living in Hampshire at the time. Wreh shared this with the dedicated football officer (DFO) for Tamworth at Staffordshire Police, who then passed this on to the UK Football Policing Unit and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary's dedicated Football Unit. Dunbar, in Whiteley, was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated malicious communications and his phone was seized. Although the Instagram account had been removed, it was identified that he was the owner of the 'Dunztagram' account'. In interview he then admitted sending the message because he had lost a bet. Dunbar was sentenced at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, where he was handed a three-year football banning order, a 12-month community order of 200 hours unpaid work, and 10 rehabilitation activity requirement days. Superintendent Adrian Hall, head of the operations unit for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, said: 'Just because Christopher Wreh was a footballer, Dunbar decided he had the right to send him a tirade of racist insults. 'Nobody should ever be subjected to such vile and disgusting abuse, regardless of what they do for a living. 'I am absolutely appalled by the racist language used by Dunbar, but immensely thankful to Christopher Wreh for his bravery in standing up to this horrible abuse and assisting the police investigation. 'Thanks to Christopher, this man will not have the privilege of going to football matches and that is an important result from this case, as racism doesn't belong in football stadiums or anywhere else in society.' The Football Banning Order means Dunbar, of John Bunyan Close, is banned from every football ground in the country and unable to travel abroad when international games are happening for a period of three years.
BreakingNews.ie
24 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Explained: What is Tattle Life? Why was the operator's identity revealed?
Website Tattle Life has been making headlines lately due to a high-profile court case in the North of Ireland. But what is the website? Why is it in the news? And why was the identity of the suspected operator revealed? Advertisement What is Tattle Life? Tattle Life is a gossip forum on which threads are started relating to a specific person. The threads often involve a public figure or celebrity, but also well-known community leaders. The website provides a platform for anonymous accounts to share their opinions on the person. Why is it in the news? Recently, there was a landmark legal victory secured against operator of Tattle Life. Advertisement Last week, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland granted an application by an Irish couple to lift reporting restrictions and name the defendants in their successful defamation and harassment case against the suspected operator of Tattle Life, Sebastian Bond, after a two-year legal battle. The ruling was made in favour of Neil and Donna Sands who successfully claimed they had been subject to a campaign of harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and breach of data rights on the Tattle Life website, which attracts up to 12 million visitors monthly, mostly in the UK. Businesspeople Neil and Donna Sands were originally awarded £300,000 (€350,000) damages against the operators of Tattle Life in late 2023. On the website, Mr Justice McAlinden said: 'This is peddling untruths for profit. A site built to monetise people's misery." Advertisement Sebastian Bond After the ruling, the owners of Tattle Life can now legally be identified as UK national Sebastian Bond, who also uses the alias Bastian Durward, along with Yuzu Zest Limited (a UK registered company) and Kumquat Tree Limited (registered in Hong Kong). Sebastian Bond is known on the internet as a vegan cooking influencer and author of the book 'Nest and Glow'. The Nest and Glow Instagram account has 135,ooo followers. Neil and Donna Sands said they were motivated to undertake the action not just on their own behalf but for all those impacted by the site over the years. In making his award, Mr Justice McAlinden noted: 'A day of reckoning will come for those behind Tattle Life and for those individuals who posted on Tattle Life. Advertisement 'To hasten that day of reckoning, it is appropriate that the court makes an award of damages to each plaintiff in this case. 'It would be remiss of the court to award costs on any other basis than indemnity. And on the defendant's business model, he said: 'This is clearly a case of peddling untruths for profit. 'It is the exercise of extreme cynicism — the calculated exercise of extreme cynicism — which in reality constitutes behaviour solely aimed at making profit out of people's misery. Advertisement 'People facilitating this are making money out of it… protecting their income streams by protecting the identity of the individual posters.' Why did Neil and Donna Sands take it to court? Neil Sands first wrote to the website's operators in February 2021, asking them to remove the defamatory thread or face legal action. They then formally initiated proceedings in June 2023. The couple was subject to defamatory and harassing commentary over a 45-page thread that was only finally removed in May 2025. In December 2023, the High Court in the North granted the £300,000 damages award and ordered that legal costs be paid on an indemnity basis, with further costs and third-party compliance expenses raising the total to be injuncted to £1.8 million. The 'cessation' figure - the amount payable by the defendants to lift the freezing orders - now stands at £1,077,173.00. This is understood to be the largest damages award for defamation in Northern Ireland's legal history and includes extensive freezing orders against the identified defendants and their corporate interests, now subject to continuing enforcement and disclosure proceedings. Neil Sands said: 'We undertook this case not just for ourselves but for the many people who have suffered serious personal and professional harm through anonymous online attacks on this and other websites. 'We believe in free speech, but not consequence-free speech - particularly where it is intended to, and succeeds in, causing real-world damage to people's lives, livelihoods and mental health. "We were in the fortunate position to be able to take the fight to these faceless operators, and it took a lot of time, effort and expense. "Along the way we heard many stories from those damaged by the scurrilous commentary on the website and we are glad to be finally able to shine a light into this dark corner of the internet. What we have established today is that the internet is not an anonymous place."
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rayner's secret Islamophobia talks ‘risk new grooming gang cover-up'
Angela Rayner is accused of wanting to secretly drive through a definition of Islamophobia that could make it harder to discuss grooming gangs. The Deputy Prime Minister has appointed a working group to come up with a definition to be used across government. It is chaired by Dominic Grieve, the former Tory Cabinet minister, who has praised a 2019 study that called the discussion of 'grooming gangs' an example of 'anti-Muslim racism'. However, Claire Coutinho, a Conservative frontbencher, told The Telegraph she was concerned the process could be influenced by 'activists who have promoted extreme definitions of Islamophobia'. She has written to Ms Rayner accusing her of having the work carried out in secret, without the public being able to offer their views during a consultation period. And she pointed out that a ' culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion ' was a key factor enabling 'gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity'. Critics have warned that some proposed definitions of Islamophobia would make it impossible for people to raise concerns about Asian grooming gangs. It comes after a report by Baroness Louise Casey found that hundreds of girls had suffered unimaginable sexual abuse, in part because some in authority had not tackled the issue out of fear of appearing racist. Ms Coutinho, the shadow minister for equalities, said was concerned the process would 'stifle free speech', and 'almost certainly would have prevented people from speaking out about the shocking abuse of young girls, disproportionately perpetrated by Pakistani Muslim men '. She told The Telegraph: 'The Casey report was crystal clear. For years, people were too scared to tell the truth about the rape and torture of children because they were scared of being called racist. 'Yet Labour is doubling down – pushing a secretive process including the voices of activists who have promoted extreme definitions of Islamophobia that would prevent people discussing genuine concerns around extremism and integration. 'Freedom of speech is not an optional extra in Britain. Angela Rayner must allow the general public to have their say on the definition of Islamophobia and make sure that no religions, belief systems, or people who hold a certain faith are beyond criticism.' The 2019 all-party parliamentary study on Islamophobia praised by Mr Grieve said: 'The recourse to the notion of free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism, whereby the criticism humiliates, marginalises, and stigmatises Muslims. One real-life example of this concerns the issue of 'grooming gangs'.' Mr Grieve described the report at the time as 'well-researched' and 'an important contribution to the debate'. However, it was condemned by Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister at the time, although the Labour Party adopted the definition and the examples referenced in the report. The working group includes Baroness Shaista Gohir, who in 2013 wrote a report arguing that the 'media coverage being given to British Pakistani offenders' was 'disproportionate', and that this was helping to 'fuel racism and Islamophobia'. She wrote: 'Right-wing populist groups have used this issue to fuel racism and Islamophobia, ignoring evidence that sexual exploitation occurs in every community and that the majority of offenders are white.' Another member, Akeela Ahmed, has called for the government to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain, despite alleged links to extremism. The new working group recently announced that although certain groups would be invited to respond to a consultation on any definition, the public would not be asked to do so. In her letter, Ms Coutinho said: 'This is unacceptable given the wide-ranging and serious implications that the definition will have on freedom of speech.' When the group comes up with its decision, it will be sent to Ms Rayner to sign off. The terms of reference state that the recommendations of the working group will not be published. Ms Coutinho continued: 'Surely in this, of all policy areas, the public deserve full transparency. 'A culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion – and self-censorship for fear of causing offence – was a key factor in what enabled gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity. 'The Casey report has said, in no uncertain terms, that many examples were found of organisations avoiding the discussion of grooming gangs altogether 'for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems'. 'For you to continue this work in secrecy, and without inviting views from the general public or wider society, would demonstrate that the Government has clearly not learnt the necessary lessons of the Casey report and the importance of transparency in maintaining public trust.' Those invited to take part in the consultation are asked for views on: what terminology to use, the need for a definition, whether racism should be a component of any new definition, what should be included within a definition, and examples of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia. The warnings were backed by the Policy Exchange think tank, which claimed an official definition of Islamophobia could shut down vital debate on grooming gangs. The report urged the Government to suspend Mr Grieve's working group with immediate effect, pending the conclusion of the national inquiry into grooming gangs in three years' time. Sir John Jenkins, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and co-author of the report, said any official definition of Islamophobia would 'almost certainly turbocharge ' cancel culture '' and would 'be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone'. A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'We are absolutely committed to defending freedom of speech, and any proposed definition must be compatible with the right to freedom of speech and expression.
