A father-of-four who demolished his half of a semi-detached house in Pudsey, Leeds, before moving abroad has defended the move, blaming council delays and safety guidance for the dispute with his former neighbour.
Chris Rhodes, 47, tore down his side of the property, leaving neighbour Shivarna Mitra, who shares her home with her young son and elderly mother, facing what she describes as a living nightmare. The 44-year-old claims the demolition has left her battling damp and mould, and has made her home unsellable.
Property owner blames council and ex-neighbour
Speaking to MailOnline, Mr Rhodes insisted he did nothing wrong, placing the blame on his ex-neighbour and local council bosses. He said: "There were very unfortunate circumstances that cost my wife and I a significant amount of money and stress also."
He claimed it "created a bad situation of which I tried to work with all parties concerned at every point to resolve."
Ms Mitra purchased her three-bedroom home in May 2021 for £217,000 and invested approximately £80,000 in refurbishments, including a £35,000 garden and a new kitchen. Since the semi-detached house was demolished, she has claimed that gaps left in her walls and roof have allowed rain, rats, squirrels and wasps in - which Mr Rhodes disputes.
Planning permission and demolition dispute
Mr Rhodes, a self-employed carpenter, purchased the property next door in July 2022 for £280,000. Planning permission for two extensions was granted that summer, with construction beginning in October 2022.
Ms Mitra alleges he exploited the planning approvals to tear down the entire house, something he firmly denies. She alerted the council in January 2023, saying the works violated planning consent. Mr Rhodes maintains that storm damage rendered the gable wall dangerous and claims that, in line with Health and Safety Executive guidance, he dismantled it alongside the front wall.
He said: "I had a discussion with the HSE and it was agreed [that pulling the wall down] was necessary and the correct course of action to avoid any risk or danger to others and their properties."
Council stop notice and legal proceedings
The council served a stop notice in May 2023, which he insists he fully observed. He said that a planning enforcement officer informed him he ought to have sought demolition permission. Mr Rhodes said: "This goes against what the Health and Safety Executive said and I had an obligation, both legally and morally to immediately make things safe. I accepted that there would be planning ramifications at this point but the number one priority is safety."
He subsequently sought approval for an entirely new dwelling, alleging the council disregarded him for months following his application. The initial application was rejected, though a second proposal for a five-bedroom property gained approval in May 2024, but the property has not yet been constructed. Mr Rhodes sold the plot with planning permission earlier this year for £115,000, saying he did not want his family "exposed to all the nastiness."
He maintains Ms Mitra attempted to obstruct the reconstruction at every opportunity and refutes her allegation that he behaved aggressively towards her. He said: "This did not happen and I was in no way, shape or form, aggressive with her." He claimed she was hostile towards his construction workers and summoned the fire service for non-existent blazes. Ms Mitra denies being abusive or aggressive.
Mr Rhodes also disputes that his contractors caused damage to her property, saying: "We did not touch her roof as is shown in the videos and images. We left approximately two feet of our roof so as to protect the top of the wall from direct weather."
A Leeds City Council spokesperson said: "The building was taken down by the owner without the necessary council permissions being in place. The owner was advised by Leeds City Council to submit a Section 80 Demolition Notice but did not do so." The council said building control officers subsequently determined the adjacent property "remained structurally stable" and advised weatherproofing the exposed party wall.
The spokesperson added: "As these are privately owned properties, the council advised Ms Mitra to contact her house insurer and take legal advice. The council will continue to monitor the site and take any appropriate action as necessary." A spokesperson for the HSE confirmed the regulator inspected the site after the property had been demolished and provided verbal guidance regarding scaffolding and site security, saying: "At the time of the HSE interactions there were no breaches of health and safety legislation that required formal enforcement."
Ms Mitra's insurance company has initiated legal proceedings, which she estimates are still approximately two years away from reaching court.
