A man who is alleged to have illegally pulled down his half of a semi-detached home, leaving the other half riddled with faults and unsaleable, has insisted he is not a "neighbour from hell."
Defiant Chris Rhodes, 47, blamed neighbour Shivarna Mitra, 44, and the local planning authority for complicating the "unfortunate situation." He spoke out after former teacher Shivarna told how her dream home had become a nightmare after he pulled down and failed to rebuild his half of the semi.
She claims that her £217,000 three-bedroom home in Pudsey, Leeds, West Yorkshire, has been left riddled with problems and she would not be able to sell it.
Rhodes defends his actions
However, speaking from outside the UK where he now lives, the dad-of-four defended his decision to pull the house down. Chris, who used to run a joinery business, denied he was a neighbour from hell, saying: "I obviously disagree with this."
"There were very unfortunate circumstances that cost my wife and I a significant amount of money and stress also. This was a series of unfortunate circumstances that have created a bad situation of which I tried to work with all parties concerned at every point to resolve. Sadly, I cannot say the same about Shirvana."
Shivarna claims that Chris used the planning applications as an excuse to illegally demolish his house, something which he denies. Chris also says he was "ignored" and felt like he was being "punished" by Leeds Council planning team when trying to apply for permission to build his home.
Planning objections and sale
Chris says it is important to add that "Shirvana and her mother both objected" to his new house planning applications. He says he also had a local councillor "posting negative posts about the property without any attempt to gain the facts of what was happening."
He says that on these posts, Shirvana was openly saying she "would do everything she could to stop us building the house," something which she denies.
Chris never built the house and sold the land with planning permission to two new owners earlier this year for £115,000.
He said he sold the plot because he "did not want my wife and children exposed to all the nastiness" and that Shivarna was "trying to stop us building at every possible point."
Shivarna denies this claim. The mum claimed that Chris was being aggressive towards her after she allegedly told him not to knock down his house.
He said: "This did not happen and I was in no way, shape or form, aggressive with her. In fact I did not see her when I visited the site to see the dangerous wall. She was abusive and aggressive towards the builders and I made a point of telling them to please ignore her."
Shivarna also denies this. Chris also says that Shivarna made it hard for him to complete work, including calling the fire brigade to report non-existent fires at the house.
He said she also called the gas board to report gas leaks without knowing the property "did not have gas."
He said: "It is my opinion that she doesn't have a firm grasp of reality and doesn't understand everything that people have tried to explain to her."
Shivarna declined to comment.
Chronology of events
Chris, who is trained as a carpenter, bought his three-bed house in July 2022 for £280,000. He subsequently put in two planning applications for two extensions to Leeds Council in June and August 2022, which were both approved. Work then began in October.
Chris, who is currently self-employed, claims that in January 2023 he was not told to stop working by the council but rather was "in the middle of building work in line with granted planning permission."
But he said during the works the gable wall between the homes "became unsafe and at great cost to ourselves we had to immediately make it safe."
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. We [the builder] immediately took the wall down to make it safe, and the front wall had to come down also."
Leeds Council handed him an official stop order in May 2023 which he says he "fully complied with."
He added: "I had a meeting with the planning enforcement officer and he notified us that we should have submitted an application to demolish to the council. 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."
Chris said after the house was demolished, he was told he would need to put in an application for a new-build house because he had gone "beyond the percentage threshold for refurbishment."
He claims he asked the council planning enforcement officer on how best to proceed but said he was "unwilling to help" so he was forced to appoint his own officer. On advice, he submitted an initial pre-application to the council and then an official application after amending it following advice from the planning department to fit modern regulations.
Council response and new permission
But Chris claims he was "ignored" by Leeds Council planning and after approximately five months waiting, he started emailing and calling to see what was happening.
He said: "I received zero response from my many answer machine messages and emails. After approximately nine months waiting we were issued a notice that squirrels were getting in the gaps in the roof, which were existing but obviously covered by the house. I arranged for a builder to cover these immediately, and he did and the notice was satisfied. Shortly after this we received notice that our planning application had been denied."
"At this point my planning officer, believing the council were trying to punish us, recommended contacting the Home Office to hold the council accountable. And also remove any unfair bias from the decision on our application. With a week of this action, the head of planning at the council contacted us asking for us 'to be sensible and communicate with them to resolve the matter.' This was frustrating as we had been ignored for so long but we immediately took them up on the offer and made further changes to the design in line with more recommendations, and after a number of months we finally received the second planning permission."
Chris received planning consent for his second application - another five-bedroom house - in May 2024.
Chris said he couldn't understand why "if it was such a problem there being no house built," Shivarna "would be so vehemently opposing the rectification of the problem."
Shivarna declined to comment. Chris said he did not let Shivarna onto his land so she could put up protective sheets because it breached HSE and council guidance he was given.
Chris also denies that builders caused structural damage to Shivarna's house, including her having to pull up her back garden decking. He also denies that his builders left holes in her loft walls and the side of her house.
He said: "There are four courses of brick [two each side] with cavities, so while there were holes on the first of four courses [which we filled], at no point was the actual external wall of her property exposed. 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."
Shivarna was approached for further comment.
A spokesperson for Leeds City Council said: "The council is aware of the demolition of a property at this site following structural instability that arose during construction works. The building was subsequently 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."
"Following the unauthorised demolition, officers from the council's Building Control team attended the site to assess the remaining structure and any potential impact on the adjoining semi-detached property. Their assessment concluded that the neighbouring property remained structurally stable and that no additional shoring was required. Officers also recommended measures to make the exposed party wall weatherproof and provided this advice to the owner."
"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 HSE spokesperson said: "HSE visited the site when the property had been demolished. HSE provided verbal advice in relation to scaffolding and site security. At the time of the HSE interactions there were no breaches of health and safety legislation that required formal enforcement."
