A mother claims she and her family are at risk of homelessness after her local council ordered her to tear down a £180,000 house extension.
Suzie Cavadino moved into her home in Aughton, Lancashire close to 20 years ago – where she lives with her four children aged between 12 and 19.
She spent almost £200,000 replacing her conservatory with a two-storey extension, which was completed in December 2022 and holds the house’s boiler, kitchen and a bedroom for two of Suzie’s offspring.
However, West Lancashire Council has now ordered the building be taken down by the end of next month.
Suzie, originally from Bootle, alleges that her builder stated she wouldn’t need planning approval for the removal of the conservatory and the construction of the new extension.
The council disputes that assessment, with Suzie additionally claiming officers from the local authority told her the new building is ‘out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area’.
A series of exchanges between Suzie and West Lancashire Council followed, with no signs of a change in mind on the part of the local authority.
In a letter to local MP Ashley Dalton, the assistant director of planning and regulatory services for the council, Paul Charlson, said: ‘….the council has carefully considered the circumstances surrounding this case and has already provided Ms Cavadino with all the advice, flexibility and support that is available within the planning process.
Suzie Cavadino moved into her home in Aughton, Lancashire close to 20 years ago, where she lives with her four children aged between 12 and 19
‘The enforcement notice was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, which extended the compliance period to 24 April 2026.
‘As the statutory period for challenging the Inspector’s decision in the High Court expired on 5 December 2025, the council is now legally required to ensure compliance.’
The Planning Inspectorate is responsible for making decisions and providing recommendations and advice on a range of land use planning-related issues.
Suzie now claims her and her children face being homeless should the council take matters into its own hands in taking the extension down.
She said: ‘I received an email to say [the extension] needs to be demolished. I don’t get it, this is our home, it’s been up for over two years and I don’t know why, after that long, it needs to come down.
‘They said it should be taken down in three months but they extended it to six months to demolish it.
‘I had a meeting with the council and I explained the downstairs extensions where the conservatory was is the sole kitchen and where our boiler is. If that goes we will literally be homeless.
‘Upstairs we made an extra bedroom which is partitioned into two for two of my children. If we get rid of that the house is going to be overcrowded.
She spent almost £200,000 replacing her conservatory with a two-storey extension, which was completed in December 2022 and holds the house’s boiler, kitchen and a bedroom for two of Suzie’s offspring
‘They just keep saying it can’t be changed, the decision has been made that’s it.’
A spokesperson for West Lancashire Council said: ‘We recognise the impact this situation has on Ms Cavadino and her family, and we have met with her to offer practical alternatives and support.
‘However, the independent Planning Inspector has upheld the requirements of our enforcement notice, and the Council must comply with that legally binding decision.’
Suzie and her mum, Margaret, appealed the decision to order the demolition of the extension by the Planning Inspectorate but it was rejected.
In a decision published on October 24, inspector KA Taylor wrote: ‘I have found the development to be causing harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
‘The alternatives advanced by the appellant have not been demonstrated to constitute part of the matters stated in the notice and do not alter my findings in this regard and therefore does not warrant a grant of planning permission.
‘Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal under ground (a) should fail and that planning permission should be refused in respect of the DPA in full.’
Suzie argues the extension is in-keeping with the area, with it being rendered to match the rest of the property, and is not an issue to properties at the rear of the house due to her home backing onto fields.
In aerial photos of the house, taken from Google Maps, the conservatory appears be bigger in size than the extension, with the conservatory being attached the to property for 17 years, Suzie explained.
As it stands, Suzie is unsure what will come from missing the compliance deadline of April 24, 2026, with her claiming she is unable to pay for the demolition of the extension.
She said: ‘It’s absolutely devastating. I’m hoping to keep the bottom floor at least, but as it stands at the moment, they want the whole extension gone.
‘We will literally be homeless if they demolish it, we won’t be able to live here and we will have nowhere to live.’
