Dramatic final day of planning appeal sees owner of giant Milton Keynes house give evidence under oath

Speaking during yesterday's final day of a three day planning inquiry Manoj Srivastava, a consultant anaesthetist of Portland Drive, Willen, said he had handed control of the project to his builder and architect and he did not know about or handle technical matters.

He said he did not know who made a decision to change the pitch of the roof from 30 degrees to 47 degrees.

His barrister, Clare Parry QC had been challenged by Milton Keynes Council’s barrister, David Forsdick QC, and the barrister for the Willen Residents Group, Stephen Whale QC that no evidence had been presented to prove that her client had not intentionally breached planning control.

Mr Srivastava had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over MK Council’s enforcement action against his property, where he ended up demolishing a bungalow putting a large two storey house, with a large roof space on a different footprint.

He then applied for retrospective planning permission, which was refused. The council then launched enforcement action.

Mr Srivastava, as well as wanting the enforcement action to end, wants planning inspector Elizabeth Ord, to reverse the council’s decision and give him permission.

Mr Srivastava, a Hindu, claimed that he faced racial discrimination and an “organised coup” from his neighbours and the council.

“I was not a party to the mistakes,” he said.

But Mr Forsdick said: “You have had at least two years to work out the answer to the question who made the decision to build the roof at 47 degrees.”

Mr Srivastava said it was “nobody”.

“It was a mistake by the builders and architects, not a conscious decision,” he added.

The inquiry closed at on Thursday afternoon after the three barristers made closing submissions.

Mr Whale, for the residents group, said Mr Srivastava’s “extraordinarily belated evidence” with an attempt to blame others was “risible.”

“He neither gave evidence, he paid them for the work, and he sued neither of them,” he said.

The group wants the house demolished.

Mr Forsdick said: “It was a flagrant, deliberate and self serving breach.”

Milton Keynes Council wants the building to be adjusted to meet its concerns but believes demolition is not justified.

Ms Parry said the building is acceptable because it is based on the fact that the council gave planning permission for something similar in 2017. They should have also approved a part-retrospective plan in 2019, she said.

“The council gave permission to a large building,” she said.

“It is not an instance of build it now and ask questions later, he had planning permission,” she said.

“It was not intentional, my client did not understand planning matters,” she said.

She added that whether the action was intentional or not enforcement action is meant to be “remedial, not punitive”.

The inspector is due to visit the Portland Drive site before making her ruling.