An entrepreneur and her husband who built a ‘granny-annexe’ in their back garden for his elderly parents were left stunned this week after learning they had been ordered to tear it down – after never obtaining ‘correct planning permission’.
Hannah Edwards, 35, and partner Elzan Seraj turned a modest detached garage at their £625,000 Milton Keynes home into a three-bedroom annexe, complete with a loft conversion, a flat-roofed dormer and a glass-fronted Juliet balcony.
But neighbours on the quiet Westcroft estate were left distraught as the once-small outbuilding ballooned in size, looming over nearby gardens.
Now, after losing a last-ditch appeal, the couple have been given 12 months to demolish the unlawful extension.
However, when the Daily Mail visited the pair this week they appeared stunned and claimed they were unaware of the demolition order and had not had any recent contact with the council.
Mr Seraj said: ‘This is the first we have heard about any decision to demolish any building work. Our architect has been dealing with the planning application and the council, and we have had no updates since May/June last year.’
Mrs Edwards, who appeared visibly shocked and distressed by the news, turned to her partner to ask: ‘Where will your parents live now?’
The saga centres on their four-bed corner plot home, where the rear garden garage was previously approved to become a small one-bed annexe.
An entrepreneur and her husband who built a ‘second-home’ in their back garden have been ordered to remove it – despite already moving their parents in
Hannah Edwards and partner Elzan Seraj turned a modest detached garage at their Milton Keynes home into a three-bedroom annexe
The original single-storey garage with a sloping roof was expanded upwards and outwards, adding a loft conversion and balcony that now overlook neighbouring homes
However, the former garage was instead converted into something more akin to a mini-home, containing three bedrooms, a bathroom, a lounge and a kitchenette.
Milton Keynes Council first refused a retrospective planning application back in 2021 and later issued an enforcement notice in June 2024, ordering the unauthorised development to be removed.
Council planners said the flat-roofed dormer was ‘bulky and excessive’, adding that the scale and design of the building caused ‘harm to the character and appearance of the area’.
They also warned that raised windows and the Juliet balcony looked directly into neighbours’ gardens, leading to what they described as ‘a harmful erosion of privacy’.
Local councillors had also raised concerns, with Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe Parish Council objecting that the project amounted to ‘overdevelopment’ and was ‘out of character for the street and surroundings’.
They warned the development would be overbearing on neighbours and worsen parking pressures on already narrow roads.
Neighbours of the couple told the Daily Mail they were nonplussed and were critical of the fact they said they had received no communication from the council about the extension.
Yagmur Wilkinson, a Zumba fitness instructor whose family home of 17 years partially backs onto the property in question, said: ‘We have never received any communication at all from the council about this property or the work there.
‘I have only ever spoken to the owners once and that was when I went to tell them about some damage caused by the builders to our separating fence when work was taking place, which they said would be repaired, but we’re still waiting after several years.
‘We have no issues at all in terms of privacy or otherwise. I do feel sorry for them but then if they were supposed to seek permission then that is a different matter.’
Another neighbour, who asked not to be named, added: ‘I was aware of the work going on at the time but at no point have we been consulted with or communicated to by anyone, either the council or the owners.
‘The people who live there tend to keep to themselves and we’ve never had any issues.’
Mrs Edwards, a 35-year-old entrepreneur who runs pubs in Buckinghamshire, and Mr Seraj, 45, previously argued that the ground floor had been designed to cater for elderly relatives, and provided crucial step-free access – unlike in their four-bedroomed main house.
They said the extra bedrooms upstairs were vital to accommodate the ‘overnight stay of out-of-town and overseas guests’.
Mrs Edwards, a 35-year-old entrepreneur, runs successful pubs in Buckinghamshire
Council planners said the flat-roofed dormer was ‘bulky and excessive’
The couple now face the prospect of spending thousands of pounds on demolition works to make their £625,000 home compliant again
Despite the council’s refusal, Mrs Edwards – who owns three pubs in Buckinghamshire – pressed ahead with a last-ditch appeal, arguing the building was not a separate home but ‘ancillary’ to the main address.
The couple argued the property caused no harm to neighbours.
However, the Planning Inspectorate rejected those claims – pointing out that the couple already live in a large three-storey house with ample space.
She said there was no evidence to explain why elderly relatives or visiting guests could not be accommodated within the substantial main home instead.
Inspector Zoe Franks said: ‘There is nothing before me to show why they would be unable to use the ground floor accommodation or bedrooms in the main house for these purposes.’
She described how the original single-storey garage with a sloping roof had been expanded upwards and outwards, adding a loft conversion and balcony that now overlook neighbouring homes.
She said: ‘The appellants accept that the works have taken place, and for which they do not have planning permission.
‘The other houses in the vicinity are predominantly built from red bricks, with brown coloured tiled peaked roofs and with some more limited use of light-coloured rendered areas.
‘The roof extension added to the outbuilding has a flat roof and is clad in dark grey boards, with dark window frames.
‘Its design and the materials used is at odds when viewed in the context of the nearby buildings.’
She added: ‘As such, it harms the character and appearance of the area.’
The appeal was dismissed, planning permission was refused, and the enforcement notice upheld.
