A property developer has been compelled to demolish a two-bedroom cottage constructed in his garden after vigilant neighbours reported the illegal works to local authorities, accusing him of attempting to circumvent planning regulations.
Retrospective Planning Application Rejected
Daniel Rayan, director of Fervid Homes based in central London, purchased a three-bedroom detached house in Poole, Dorset, for £465,000 in 2022. He initially secured permission to extend and enlarge the main property. However, he subsequently demolished a dilapidated garage and workshop in the garden to build a two-bed cottage, prompting a neighbour to alert BCP Council.
In response, Mr Rayan applied for retrospective planning permission, asserting the structure was intended as a granny annexe for elderly family members. Neighbours countered, alleging the main house was being used as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) and that he was "making a mockery" of planning rules by exploiting loopholes to create additional rentable space.
Council Findings and Demolition Order
When retrospective permission was denied, Mr Rayan revised his claim, stating the outbuilding would serve as a gym, study, and garden room. Neighbours objected again, leading to a refusal of a certificate of lawful development. BCP Council has now issued a demolition order, giving Mr Rayan seven months to tear down the building or face legal action, unless he appeals the decision.
A planning officer highlighted several violations: the cottage's footprint exceeded that of the original main house (approximately 60 square metres), it subdivided the garden with access only through the new building, and it was 20cm too tall for permitted development. The officer noted "very limited evidence" that the building was incidental to the dwelling's enjoyment and questioned why such a large structure was necessary for the proposed uses.
Developer's Defence and Neighbour Concerns
Mr Rayan defended his actions, claiming he sought formal planning advice in 2022 and was informed outbuildings could potentially be converted into a granny annexe. He explained that during early work, the original structures were found to be structurally unsound, with unstable walls, a collapsed ceiling, and a leaking roof, necessitating demolition and replacement with a compliant construction.
Neighbours, however, remained unconvinced. Sally Spiers argued the site would become "cramped and constrained" with insufficient garden space, while Richard Dymott accused Mr Rayan of using professional knowledge to manipulate planning loopholes for rentable rooms. Dymott emphasised that the proposal still represented "garden grabbing" and failed to address previous refusal reasons, leaving the garden unacceptably reduced.
The case underscores ongoing tensions between property development and local planning enforcement, with residents vigilant against perceived abuses of regulations.
