Carpenter Denies Being 'Neighbour From Hell' After Illegally Demolishing Semi-Detached Home

A carpenter who illegally demolished half of a semi-detached home has defended his actions, stating he is not a "neighbour from hell" despite claims he left the adjacent property damaged and unsellable. Chris Rhodes, 47, who has since left the UK, stated that his decision to demolish his three-bedroom property in Pudsey, Leeds, was a necessary measure to address safety concerns arising from a dispute with his former neighbour, Shivarna Mitra, and the local council.

Ms. Mitra alleges that following the demolition, her side of the property has suffered from damp and mould, and her electrical systems were damaged. She claims she cannot access the adjacent land to fix the issues and fears her home is now structurally unsafe and unsellable. She purchased her home in May 2021 and invested £80,000 in renovations, describing it as a "dream" home for her and her family.

Mr. Rhodes, who purchased his property in July 2022 for £280,000, asserted that "unfortunate circumstances" led to significant financial and emotional stress, creating a situation he attempted to resolve with all parties. He expressed that he could not say the same for Ms. Mitra.

According to Mr. Rhodes, he applied for planning permission for extensions in June and August 2022, which were approved, with work commencing in October 2022. However, Ms. Mitra claims Mr. Rhodes used these applications to illegally demolish the house. She contacted Leeds City Council in January 2023, alleging breaches of planning consent, a claim Mr. Rhodes disputes.

Mr. Rhodes stated he felt "ignored" and "punished" by the council's planning team when seeking permission for his construction plans. He also alleged that a local councillor posted negative comments online about the property, which Ms. Mitra allegedly commented on, vowing to obstruct their building efforts. Ms. Mitra denies these allegations.

Despite demolishing his home, Mr. Rhodes did not rebuild. He sold the land with planning permission to two new owners earlier this year for £115,000, citing a desire to shield his wife and children from "nastiness" and Ms. Mitra's alleged attempts to halt construction.

He refuted Ms. Mitra's claims of aggressive behaviour, stating he did not interact with her directly on-site and that she was abusive towards the builders. He also alleged Ms. Mitra made it difficult for him to complete work and falsely reported fires to the fire brigade. Mr. Rhodes suggested Ms. Mitra "doesn't have a firm grasp of reality."

By December 2022, Ms. Mitra reported that Mr. Rhodes had removed his property's roof, leaving gaping holes and exposing her home to the elements. Mr. Rhodes stated that a storm made the gable wall unsafe and, following guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), he demolished the wall and a front wall to prevent risk to others. He acknowledged the gable wall became unsafe but stated he incurred significant costs to make it safe, in consultation with the HSE.

Ms. Mitra countered that if the council had intervened earlier, the situation might have been salvageable. She described being exposed from the foundations to the roof after the party wall and breeze blocks were removed, leading to rats, squirrels, and wasps entering her property, along with water damage, mould, and damaged electrics, carpets, and wallpaper.

Leeds City Council issued an official stop order in May 2023, which Mr. Rhodes claims he fully complied with. He stated that a planning enforcement officer informed him he should have submitted a demolition application, contradicting the HSE's advice regarding immediate safety measures. He prioritized safety over planning ramifications.

After demolition, Mr. Rhodes was informed he needed a new-build application due to exceeding the refurbishment threshold. He claimed council officers were unhelpful, forcing him to hire his own. He submitted applications, but after a prolonged period with no response, he received notices regarding squirrels and then a denial of his planning application. Following intervention from the head of planning, he received a second planning permission for a five-bedroom house in May 2024.

Mr. Rhodes questioned why Ms. Mitra would oppose rectifying the situation if the absence of a house was the problem. He denied builders caused structural damage or left holes in her loft walls and house, stating her external wall was never exposed and her roof was not touched.

A spokesperson for Leeds City Council confirmed awareness of the demolition, stating the building was taken down without necessary permissions and that the owner did not submit a required demolition notice. The council's Building Control team assessed the site, concluding the neighbouring property was structurally stable and recommended measures to weatherproof the exposed party wall. The council advised Ms. Mitra to contact her insurer and seek legal advice.

A HSE spokesperson stated that upon visiting the site after the demolition, they provided verbal advice on scaffolding and site security. At the time of their interactions, no breaches of health and safety legislation requiring formal enforcement were found.