By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Enforcement Notice blunder leads to landlord court appearance

A landlord who repeatedly failed to comply with a Planning Enforcement Notice has received a hefty fine.

Sultan Mahmood, of Woking, was fined £12,000 for repeatedly failing to remove an ‘L shaped’ dormer that did not comply with approved plans. 

Mahmood was also ordered to pay the council’s legal costs totalling £3,532.50 and a victim surcharge of £170.


In October 2018, Mahmood was granted planning permission for a change of ground floor property use from office to residential, construction of a single storey extension and rear roof dormer.

During construction, however, the council’s Planning Enforcement Team received a complaint that additional building works were being undertaken. It was observed that an unauthorised ‘L shaped’ dormer was being constructed at the rear of the property.

Having been notified that the dormer was contrary to the approved plans, Mahmood submitted a retrospective planning application which was refused by Woking Borough Council’s Planning Committee in February 2019.

A Planning Enforcement Notice was then issued in March 2019 requiring Mr Mahmood to remove the unauthorised ‘L shaped’ dormer by July 2019 and comply with the original approved plans. No appeal was lodged.

However, during a follow-up inspection in March 2020, it was observed the unauthorised dormer remained and Mahmood was warned that unless it was removed by September 2020 prosecution proceedings would commence.

Despite further opportunities to comply with the Planning Enforcement Notice, Mahmood failed to act and in December 2022 prosecution proceedings begun.

Mahmood was summonsed to appear at Staines Magistrates’ Court where he was found guilty in his absence under section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

He was fined £12,000 plus a victim surcharge of £170 and ordered to pay the council’s £3,532.50 legal costs.

A spokesperson for Woking council says:“Planning regulations are in place to protect the local environment from inappropriate and overzealous development. Sadly, this is an example of a property owner who believed he could act with impunity by ignoring the planning process.

“Throughout this action, planning officers acted with integrity having repeatedly given Mr Mahmood opportunities to comply with the approved plans, yet he decided against taking the necessary step to resolve the matter.

“Therefore, this significant fine should act as a deterrent to anyone who believes they can take the planning process into their own hands. As Mr Mahmood has found to his own cost, the alternatives are often far more costly than just doing the job properly in the first place.”

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.

  • icon

    Anyone pick up on the fact we cannot post comments on the Beadle award 🤔🤔😂😂 now let me think why 👀


    Yes, Kim Jon Norwood does not want little Ben upset.😩 This censorship is steering me towards not renewing my NRLA membership. Well done, Graham. 🤬

  • icon

    Yes I noticed that!! Only one comment and it's blocked already. Oh dear!!


    We can comment on Ben Beadle again! 👍👍👍

  • icon

    BTW is the L-shaped dormer still there?


    That's a very polite way to describe Ben!

  • Richard LeFrak

    Well Done Ben on your award and how many times this publication can put association in one sentence.

    How can Beadles About say he is driving the political agenda and helping landlords when he has said nothing for two years about RRB and only just woke up last week. Akin to giving Usain Bolt a 50m head start in a sprint.....!

  • icon

    I wrote the first comment about Beadle. It wasn’t rude. In essence I literally said Jeremy was the Nr 1 Beadle. Ben is second best. Added it was unforgivable Ben said be “didn’t have a problem” with S21 going in 2020 meeting with the government and Shelter etc. I suppose there was some bad comments after.

  • icon

    These people with strange names don't seem to respect authority and think they can do whatever they want. I wonder if it is a culture thing.

  • Daniela Provvedi

    He received a 12k fine, plus victim's surcharge, plus council legal costs; but does he get to keep the L-shaped dormer?


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up