Key Points
- Chris Rhodes, a 47-year-old father-of-four and former joinery business owner, demolished his side of a semi-detached property in Pudsey, Leeds.
- His neighbour, Shivarna Mitra, 44, claims her adjacent £217,000 three-bedroom home has been left riddled with structural issues, damp, mould, and rendered completely unsellable.
- Mr Rhodes purchased his adjacent property in July 2022 for £280,000, gained planning permission for extensions that summer, and started construction in October 2022 before the structure was brought down.
- Leeds City Council stated the building was taken down without necessary council permissions and without submitting a required Section 80 Demolition Notice.
- Mr Rhodes, who has since moved abroad and sold the vacant plot with planning permission for £115,000, has broken his silence to insist he is not to blame for the ensuing chaos, pointing the finger instead at Ms Mitra and the local authority.
- Ms Mitra, who lives at the property with her young son and elderly mother, has battled cancer during the ordeal and stated her insurer has launched a legal claim.
Pudsey (The Leeds Times) October 6, 2026 —As reported by Simon Green and Rahmah Ghazali of regional news titles including Yorkshire Live and Leeds Live, a father-of-four who unlawfully demolished his half of a Leeds semi-detached house has insisted he is not to blame for the chaos that followed. Chris Rhodes, 47, tore down his side of the property in Pudsey, leaving neighbour Shivarna Mitra, 44, living beside a heap of rubble in a home she claims is plagued by damp and mould and is now impossible to sell.
Mr Rhodes, a self-employed carpenter, purchased the adjacent property in July 2022 for £280,000. He obtained planning permission for two extensions that summer, and construction commenced in October 2022. However, Ms Mitra alleged that he exploited the initial planning approvals as justification to demolish the house entirely—an accusation that Mr Rhodes refutes. Ms Mitra alerted the council in January 2023, claiming the work violated planning consent.
As reported by journalists covering the story, a Leeds City Council spokesperson stated:
“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.”
How has Chris Rhodes defended his actions?
Speaking from abroad where he now resides, an unrepentant Mr Rhodes broke his silence to defend his choice and rejected the label of being a “neighbour from hell”. In an interview with MailOnline, as relayed by regional publications, Mr Rhodes stated:
“There were very unfortunate circumstances that cost my wife and I a significant amount of money and stress also.”
He claimed these factors created a bad situation which he tried to work with all parties concerned at every point to resolve.
Mr Rhodes explained safety concerns prompted him to bring down the structure. He noted: “I accepted that there would be planning ramifications at this point but the number one priority is safety.” He added that a planning enforcement officer previously informed him he should have applied for demolition consent, remarking that
“this goes against what the Health and Safety Executive said and I had an obligation, both legally and morally to immediately make things safe.”
Following the demolition, Mr Rhodes required permission for an entirely new house. While his first application was rejected, a second proposal for a five-bedroom home received approval in May 2024.
Despite this approval, the property was never constructed. Mr Rhodes ultimately sold the plot with planning permission earlier in the year for £115,000, explaining he did not want his family exposed to all the nastiness. He maintained that Ms Mitra attempted to obstruct the rebuild at every opportunity, questioning why she would oppose it if the vacant plot was such an issue.
Furthermore, Mr Rhodes disputed claims regarding property damage and conduct. He alleged that Ms Mitra was abusive towards his builders and summoned the fire brigade over fires that did not exist. Denying any aggressive behaviour on his part, he told MailOnline:
“This did not happen and I was in no way, shape or form, aggressive with her.”
Mr Rhodes also disputed that his builders caused structural damage to her home, stating:
“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.”
What is Shivarna Mitra’s account of the living nightmare?
Ms Mitra, who purchased her three-bedroom home in May 2021 for £217,000 after years of saving, spent approximately £80,000 on renovations, including a £35,000 garden and a new kitchen. Sharing the property with her young son and elderly mother, she has described the past four years as a nightmare.
She alleged that gaps left in her walls and roof following the demolition have allowed rain, rats, squirrels, and wasps inside. Ms Mitra has also faced severe personal health battles during the ordeal, revealing that she has been battling cancer and underwent major surgery. She stated:
“Instead of recovering, I’m fighting battles from my hospital bed on emails.”
In response to Mr Rhodes’ assertions, Ms Mitra firmly denied being abusive or aggressive toward his builders. Legal proceedings are currently underway, with Ms Mitra noting that her insurer has launched a legal claim that remains approximately two years away from reaching court.
Explore More Pudsey News
Leeds Semi-Detached Demolition Dispute in Pudsey 2026
Pudsey Police Appeal After Residential Robbery in Pudsey 2026
Background of the particular development
The dispute centres on residential property regulations, party wall legislation, and local planning authorities within the United Kingdom. Under English planning law, significant structural alterations and total demolitions of residential buildings are strictly regulated to protect adjoining structures, ensure structural integrity, and maintain community safety. Homeowners are typically required to serve proper notices—such as a Section 80 demolition notice to the local authority—and adhere strictly to party wall agreements when undertaking major works on semi-detached properties.
Failures or omissions in following these statutory procedures frequently lead to severe legal disputes, civil insurance claims, and complex regulatory investigations between neighbours.
Prediction
This high-profile case highlights the critical importance of strict regulatory compliance and transparent communication in property development across the United Kingdom. For homeowners, local authorities, and insurers, the prolonged dispute serves as a cautionary tale regarding the legal and financial liabilities tied to unauthorised structural demolitions.
As Ms Mitra’s insurer pursues legal recourse through the courts, the outcome may establish significant precedent regarding accountability, compensation for diminution of property value, and the legal obligations of developers sharing structural walls with adjoining residential properties.
