A bitter row has erupted between a Labour councillor and his next door neighbours who have accused him of secretly building an office on their land.
Slough Borough Council’s Ejaz Ahmed had applied for retroactive planning permission after building a house extension that was different to plans that had already been approved in 2018.
The key difference in the new plans was the incorporation of an existing brick shed that straddles the boundary of his and his neighbour’s land into a side extension for a home office.
Planning documents and pictures of Mr Ahmed’s extension appear to show that the new office does creep onto the land of his next door neighbours however the councillor has maintained that the brick shed came with the property 17 years ago.
Google street view images of the property before the extension also show a clear divide where the new roofed extension now sits.
A bitter row has erupted between a Labour councillor and his next door neighbours who have accused him of secretly building an office on their land
A new extension contains an office which extends over the boundary of the neighbouring house
Aerial photos of the two properties show the clear overlap between the houses
Google street view images of the property before the extension also show a clear divide where the new roofed extension now sits
Normally in cases where a new development will impinge on the land of a neighbour, permission must be sought in advance in the form of a ‘certificate B’ notification.
However, Mr Ahmed’s neighbours Kirandeep Kaur and Amandeep Turner claim that no such certificate was given to them prior to the development being built.
Mr Ahmed maintains one was served via the post.
They lodged a complaint to Slough Borough Council’s planning committee claiming that the outbuilding ‘never belonged to Mr Ahmed.’
Speaking to the MailOnline, the couple said: ‘The property boundaries are bordered by a straight line which he has clearly built over. You can even see it in the plans he submitted.
‘He has extended a box on his side that we didn’t have access to.
‘They had initially asked him to demolish it for the extension and when he submitted again, he included it in the boundaries of his land.
‘He has stolen our land. We are thinking of taking it to court as it is a civil matter.’
Councillor Ahmed said he had completed the extension before launching a career in local politics and strongly denied building on his neighbour’s land.
He told MailOnline: ‘To clarify, we have not built anything that encroaches on our neighbour’s property, and any such claims are entirely unfounded.
‘The brick shed has been part of our property since the house was originally built, likely in the 1950s or 60s.
‘I purchased the property over 17 years ago, and the shed has remained unchanged, with exclusive access maintained by us throughout.
‘We have clear evidence to support this. Until the current owner moved in last year, there were no disputes regarding the shed’s placement.
‘I understand the Daily Mail visited the area, where it is evident that I have not built anything on the neighbour’s side, nor would I have any intention of doing so.
‘Boundary lines in this part of Wexham are commonly irregular, a feature visible along our street.
This week, councillors voted to approve Mr Ahmed’s retrospective application unanimously
Planning documents and pictures of Mr Ahmed’s extension appear to show that the new office does creep onto the land of his next door neighbours
The councillor has maintained that the brick shed came with the property 17 years ago
Kirandeep Kaur and Amandeep Turner had previously sought to build a single storey rear extension with a two storey side which Mr Ahmed complained about
Mr Ahmed refuted claims he had extended his property too far
‘The current owner purchased their property last year, fully aware that the shed was already in place. Since then, they have demanded its demolition, using increasingly aggressive language.
‘Despite this, we engaged in mediation through their representative, but their approach shifted after learning of my role as a councillor, seemingly as part of an effort to tarnish my reputation.’
The two neighbours had previously warred over a different extension with Mr Ahmed lodging official complaints against his neighbour’s application on the council’s planning portal.
Kirandeep Kaur and Amandeep Turner had sought to build a single storey rear extension with a two storey side.
The application also showed plans for a newly formed gate and access on the site of the contested outbuilding.
However Mr Ahmed complained claiming the development would hamper light and privacy.
He also directly referenced the contested outbuilding, writing: ‘This area of my property is a existing garage outbuilding.
‘The external outline of this is original and we have internally insulated. The side also has a newly formed gate and access. Again this would not be possible without showing my property wall demolished.’
This week, councillors voted to approve Mr Ahmed’s retrospective application unanimously.
A council legal officer said: ‘Any private property matter is a civil matter between the parties because anyone can apply for planning permission for any piece of land.’
