08-06-2025
Businessman accused of 'increasing the size of his home in every direction' without permission by council
A businessman who increased the size of his home in every direction without planning permission, and to the fury of some neighbours, has declared: 'I don't understand what I've done wrong!'
Mohammed Rahman extended to the front, the rear and side, and even built a structure at the end of his long back garden with one local saying: 'It looks like a little house.'
But he failed to acknowledge what he had done wrong until planners warned him it was an 'illegal build' which had caused 'significant stress to some residents' in Elmdon, near Solihull, West Midlands.
One officer told him: 'You can't extend your property in every direction without seeking the proper permission.'
Mr Rahman, understood to be in his 30s, was forced to submit a retrospective planning application which was finally given the green light last week (May 21) by Solihull Council.
The semi-detached house, which is white washed with imposing dark grey full length windows and doors and has a loft conversion, contrasts to the more traditional redbrick properties surrounding it.
Whilst the building works to the home has been completed, double glazing is still to be fitted and internal decoration completed.
Mr Rahman, speaking by phone to MailOnline, said: 'I own the house and it is very nice but I am not living there yet.
'I have extended it and workmen are still there but I don't understand what I've done wrong!'
He claimed he had no objections from neighbours, insisting: 'There is no problem, no issue.'
He described himself as a 'business owner' who has a 'few retail shops.'
An elderly neighbour complained the house was 'too big' and had another building in the rear garden which 'looks like a little house.'
The man said: 'I don't know the owner because he hasn't;t moved in yet but there has been a lot of work going on there for a long time.
'It doesn't bother me too much, as long as he has the proper planning permission which I believe has now been given.'
Another local said the house 'looks out of place in the street' in Old Lode Lane, saying: 'It sticks out like a sore thumb!'
One commented: 'Looking on the planning portal, the previously accepted application looks nothing like the building standing now.
'It's huge and looks like it could be a future HMO (house in multiple occupation).
'The owner was forced to put in a retrospective application or face having to rip it down.'
Yet another remarked: 'It seems to be one rule for the well off and another for the rest of us.
'In this case, there have been several objections by concerned residents due to a variety of reasons, the main one being the property standing out like a sore thumb.
'How on earth the planning dept allowed floor to ceiling windows is beyond me!'
One said: 'If you review the history in this case, somethings doesn't quite add up as to how the supposed 'fair and impartial' council allowed this to be pushed through.
'Quite obviously the applicant has disregarded the process, and retrospectively sought approval. Can we all do the same, or is it one rule for one?'
Others complained about the Juliet balconies to the front and rear.
The property has divided residents with some commenting on social media that they liked it.
A supporter said: 'I think the owners done a great job. Looks amazing. Best house on the street. Well done!'
Another urged: 'Why can't we just be happy for the owner! Who's designed a 'Grand Design' as Kevin McCloud would say.
'We should respect the decision from the planning committee.'
In March Mr Rahman resubmitted a retrospective application for a single storey front and rear extension, two storey side extension, alterations to front fenestration (arrangement of windows), addition of render to the property and a detached outbuilding to the rear.
It came after Mark Andrews, Solihull Council 's head of planning, design and engagement, had issued a notice to refuse the original application in January.
Committee members, at a meeting in May, were told officers had concerns the roof of the ground floor was going to be used as a balcony but the applicant was now proposing a Juliette balcony with no plans to use it as a balcony.
With that issue overcome, planners approved the extension on officers' recommended.
During the meeting Councillor Richard Long - ward councillor for Elmdon - said: 'I'm speaking against the application based on concerns expressed by residents.
'Planning applications related to this property have been a long running matter.
'The drip drip changes and apparent ignoring of previous planning refusal has caused significant stress to some residents, as highlighted by their objections.
'There is a lack of confidence any restriction imposed will be enforced.'
And he added residents were unhappy council officers were recommending approval on 'what appears minor changes.'
During the debate, the chairman Councillor Bob Grinsell said: ' live in a house that has got both a balcony and Juliette balcony, so I do understand the situation.
'If a local resident was to see any changes (it being used as a balcony) I would suggest they get hold of you, Councillor Long, and you contact planning enforcement - they will enforce the matter.
'Can I reiterate the reasoning for refusal under delegated powers was purely the potential usage over the flat roof (as a balcony) which would overlook and give a loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.
When the vote was taken councillors unanimously voted in favour of approval.
