A father claims he has been left feeling ‘suicidal’ after the council ordered him to pay more than £100,000 after he built his home extension too large.
Khalid Hussain has accused Wokingham Borough Council of ‘abusing its powers’ and ‘bullying’ residents after officers enforced a controversial planning levy that he says he cannot afford to pay.
The taxi driver had been granted permission to make home improvements to his gated six-bed Berkshire property, which boasts an expansive driveway and a two-bed ‘mini bungalow’ in the back garden.
Mr Hussain was told he could build a side and rear extension and expand his loft, but he breached the approved plans and made at least six alterations which were not included in his application.
He built two bathrooms on the first and second floors without approval and made several changes including a large, imposing dormer to his loft extension.
He also heightened the loft by changing the roofing from a hip to gable without planning permission.
But the 60-year-old, whose home is worth up to 800k, says he has battled ‘sleepless nights’ and ‘suicidal thoughts’ after the council ‘threatened’ him to pay a hefty £104k bill enforced under a strict Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) meant for developers.
While he says he ‘holds his hands up’ that he made a mistake and ‘did not know the ins and outs of how CIL works’, he feels the fee he is being ordered to pay is ‘disproportional’.
He had initially been handed an enforcement notice ordering him to break down the entire extension.
Mr Hussain told the Daily Mail: ‘We’ve suffered sleepless nights over this.
Pictured: The rear of Khalid Hussain’s property. A large dormer was built in the loft without planning permission, and a thin to the column to the left holding three bathrooms were built without approval
Mr Hussain has since been hit with a £104k Community Infrastructure Levy that homebuilders are usually exempt from. He says building works have been paused for nearly a year after he ran out of money
Mr Hussain applied for retrospective planning permission because he had breached the initial approved plans. CIL exemptions do not apply to retrospective plans and he was handed a hefty fee to say, with interest
‘I think it’s unfair and they’re abusing their powers too much.
‘I have had suicidal thoughts going through my head over the past eight, nine months over this.
‘It’s terrible. I’ve never had anything in my life like this.
‘It made me feel like I’d done something criminal.’
Works in the house, which was a three-bed before extensions were carried out, remain paused and unfinished since earlier this year after Mr Hussain says he ‘ran out of money’ to continue.
Instead his family – his wife, two youngest children and himself – are living in a granny annexe at the back of the property which has two bedrooms, a bathroom and its own kitchen.
The council insists Mr Hussain breached rules by not abiding by the plans, and that legislation means applicants cannot be exempt from paying CIL on retrospective schemes.
It says the payment cannot be ‘waived’ but arrangements can be made to pay in instalments.
But Mr Hussain says the fee is ‘disproportionate’ as it demands payment – which is charged per sqm – for the entire extension instead of just the retrospective changes.
He said: ‘I’d made some changes to the original plans and so I put some retrospective planning in. And then because of that they hit me with a CIL charge of nearly £104,000.
‘The original plan was to do a side and rear extension. They allowed me CIL relief for 116sqm.
‘But they’re saying I added another 51 meters on top of that in alterations. But the extra space I’ve created is up into the roof, the footprint is still the same, I haven’t added to my boundary.
‘The retrospective is on a 3m by 2m toilet stack at the rear.
‘So one toilet on the ground floor, a second one on the first floor and a third on the second floor. They were all in line, it wasn’t like they were in different places.
‘The loft, I changed it from a hip to gable roof. And I made the dormer bigger and extended the reach a little bit higher so I could get extra space inside.
Mr Hussain pictured standing in part of the loft extension for which there was no permission in his initial plans. He later lodged retrospective plans, and says he feels the council is ‘bullying’ him and other residents in similar situations
An overhead view of the back of Mr Hussain’s Berkshire home. Works remain unfinished, with patching on part of the roof
Instead of being charged the CIL levy for changes he had made without planning permission, Mr Hussain says he has been charged for the entire extension, including the majority which had been approved previously
Mr Hussain says one of the reasons he built the extension was so that his wife could have a bigger kitchen as she wished, however more than a year later it remains unfinished
‘Now they’re charging me for the whole extension, because I put in retrospective planning which is what they advised.
‘Before, they wanted us to knock the whole building down.
‘They told me because I didn’t have planning because of the changes I’d done, they wanted me to knock the whole thing down. They said if not they’ll come and knock it down themselves.
‘That gave us sleepless nights for at least a couple of months, at least.
‘Me and my missus, everybody suffered because of that.’
Mr Hussain that one complaint was lodged by a neighbour to the rear regarding the size of the dormer and that it was overlooking into their home, which he says is not the case.
He was able to successfully fight against the enforcement notice and was allowed to keep his extension after submitting retrospective planning documents for the revised plans.
Speaking of the CIL costs, he said: ‘They didn’t say anything about CIL until we did the retrospective plans.
‘Then they sent a letter, it was £98,000 then they hit me with a surcharge of nearly £5,000.
‘I don’t have the money, I can’t pay them. If I did, I would.
‘I think it’s unfair and they’re abusing their powers too much.
‘They’re trying to raise their revenue. They’re trying to make money as and when they can.
‘They keep writing to me saying pay it, pay it, pay it, and they’re still adding interest.
‘They wrote back to me recently saying they can do an arrangement for me to pay it in two instalments.
‘If I had the money I would pay, I don’t have the money.
‘It’s not something you can find at the back of the sofa.
‘For the 60sqm extra I have done, it comes to about £22 or 23,000. So that’s more reasonable, but this is just way over the top.
‘A few thousand pounds, fine, you can just bit the bullet and move on. But £104,000, you need a lifetime to save that kind of money.
‘They’ve got the power and they’re bullying us really.’
The father-of-four was hit with the hefty bill under CIL – a levy imposed by councils on building works to go towards funds for local amenities such as parks.
The charge is meant to be aimed at developers and is charged per square meter, but homeowners who are ‘self-building’ for themselves are able to apply for an exemption.
Mr Hussain was initially told to tear down the entire extension after council officers found he had violated approved plans.
After submitting retrospective planning he was allowed to retain the additional structures.
But while CIL exemptions are available for homeowners who are making the changes to their own homes, it does not apply to retrospective applications.
The family erected a temporary store while works are ongoing and have a granny annexe in the back garden in which they have been living
Mr Hussain told of how he has been left battling ‘sleepless nights’ and ‘suicidal thoughts’ after first being told to demolish the entire extension and later being hit with a £104k bill
Mr Hussain went as far as saying he would rather pay in jail time than be subjected to the hefty payment.
He said: ‘They have threatened me that they will use their powers to get this money, and if they don’t, then you will end up being sent to prison for three months.
‘I mean to be honest, I mean I don’t want to go to prison, but I haven’t got the money,
‘I’d rather go to prison for three months to get this off my back because I mean that’s the only way out I can see.
‘But they will only do that after they try and seize your assets.
‘I have had suicidal thoughts going through my head over the past eight nine months.
‘It’s terrible. I’ve never had anything in my life like this.
‘At the moment I haven’t even got enough money to finish the building.
‘Fortunately we’ve got a bungalow at the back, annexe type of building and we’re using that to get by at the moment.
‘Me, my kids, my missus, we’re struggling very badly at the moment.
‘I suffer from diabetes and depression.
‘Everybody is suffering basically.’
CIL has been controversial across many councils, with homeowners claiming they have been unfairly caught out and made to pay the hefty fees which was meant to aimed at developers.
He said: ‘We need to unite. Individually we haven’t got much power. But if we unite and support each other it will make more impact.
‘This was never meant for residential people it’s for developers.
‘I think there’s a law saying if you got hit with CIL as long as you didn’t sell the property within five years then they will waive it.
‘But I haven’t been given that option.
‘The stress of this is even affecting me from going to work as well.
‘So that makes it even worse. Mentally it’s very draining and it’s put a big strain on us.
‘It’s very unfair what they are doing.’
A council spokesperson said: ‘Planning permission for extensions to the property was originally granted in 2019, with CIL relief applied at that time.
‘Subsequent works did not follow approved plans and were subject to enforcement. A retrospective application submitted in 2023 was refused due to design concerns, and the refusal was upheld on appeal in 2024.
‘A further retrospective application was approved in January 2025.
‘Under national regulations, developments approved retrospectively cannot receive CIL relief or exemption.
‘In line with these requirements, the council has issued a CIL liability notice for the 2025 permission.
‘While the charge cannot be waived, the council will allow payment by instalments in accordance with its policy.
‘We would reiterate that we are not over-zealous in pursuing CIL and would look reasonably at small mistakes by residents who are not familiar with planning regulations.
‘But this case relates to a planning breach rather than a minor discrepancy and Government regulations are clear on the approach that the council needs to follow.’
