Pudsey house demolition dad breaks silence with four-word stance after ditching UK

Chris Rhodes has defended demolishing his half of a semi-detached house in Pudsey

A man who unlawfully demolished his half of a semi-detached house, leaving the adjoining property riddled with structural issues and impossible to sell, has insisted he is "no neighbour from hell."

An unrepentant Chris Rhodes, 47, placed the blame on neighbour Shivarna Mitra, 44, and the local planning authority for making the 'unfortunate situation' worse. He broke his silence after former teacher Shivarna revealed how her dream home had turned into a nightmare following his decision to tear down his half of the property and fail to rebuild it.

She claims her £217,000 three-bedroom home in Pudsey has been left plagued with problems, rendering it unsellable. Despite this, the father-of-four, speaking from abroad where he now resides, stood by his choice to demolish the property. Chris, a former joinery business owner, flatly denied being a neighbour from hell, stating: "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 alleges that Chris exploited planning applications as a pretext to illegally knock down his house, a claim he firmly rejects. Chris also claims he was "ignored" and felt as though he was being "punished" by Leeds Council's planning team while attempting to secure permission to construct his home.

Chris maintains it's crucial to note that "Shirvana and her mother both objected" to his house planning applications. He alleges he also had a local councillor "posting negative posts about the property without any attempt to gain the facts of what was happening". He states that within these posts, Shirvana openly declared she "would do everything she could to stop us building the house", a claim which she denies.

Chris ultimately never constructed the house and sold the land with planning permission to two new owners earlier this year for £115,000. He explained 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 assertion.

The mum alleged that Chris behaved aggressively towards her after she purportedly told him not to demolish his house. He responded: "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 alleges that Shivarna made it difficult for him to carry out work, including contacting the fire brigade to report fires at the property that did not exist. He claimed she additionally contacted the gas board to report gas leaks, apparently unaware that 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.

Chris, who is trained as a carpenter, purchased his three-bedroom home in July 2022 for £280,000. He subsequently submitted two planning applications for extensions to Leeds Council in June and August 2022, both of which received approval, with work commencing in October.

Did you know you can make LeedsLive a preferred source of Leeds news in Google, which will mean you get more of our breaking news, exclusives, and must-read stories straight away? Here's more information about what this means and how to do it - you can also do it by clicking here .

Chris, who is currently self-employed, maintains that in January 2023 he was not instructed to cease work by the council, but was instead "in the middle of building work in line with granted planning permission". He did acknowledge, however, that during the works the gable wall between the two properties "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 maintains 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 explained that following the demolition, he was informed he would need to submit an application for a new-build property because he had gone "beyond the percentage threshold for refurbishment". He alleges he approached the council planning enforcement officer for guidance on the best way forward but claims he was "unwilling to help", leaving him with no choice but to appoint his own officer. Acting on professional advice, he lodged an initial pre-application with the council, followed by a formal application after making amendments based on recommendations from the planning department to meet current regulations.

However, Chris alleges he was "ignored" by Leeds Council planning and after waiting roughly five months, he began sending emails and making phone calls to establish 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 obtained planning approval for his second application - another five-bedroom property - in May 2024. Chris stated he struggled to comprehend why "if it was such a problem there being no house built," Shivarna "would be so vehemently opposing the rectification of the problem". Shirvarna declined to comment.

Chris stated he refused Shivarna access to his land to install protective sheeting as it contravened HSE and council guidance he had received. Chris also refutes claims that builders caused structural damage to Shivarna's property, including her having to pull up the back garden decking. He further disputes 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.

What do the council say?

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 added: "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."