在英国西约克郡杜斯伯里，一位商人擅自拆除旧宅并新建了一座巨大的“豪宅”，此举引发了邻居们长达三年的强烈不满和争议——他们称这栋建筑是怪物，它毁了整条街的美观。
如今，这名商人被勒令在六个月内将整栋房屋连同地基彻底拆除。
购房后违反建设？
阿米尔·阿扎姆（Amir Azam）是一名销售床垫的企业家——豪华床具品牌Stonehouse The Bed Co的总监。
2021年，他以23.5万英镑购买了一套破旧的房子，该房子位于杜斯伯里一条安静郊区街道上。
据说，他当时获得了小规模扩建的规划许可。但他没有遵循批准的计划，而是直接将原房彻底拆除，在原址上建起了一座巨大的山墙式建筑。
这栋新建豪宅长达16米，与周围低矮的平房和传统住宅相比显得格外突兀。
一名开着保时捷的商人推倒了一座简陋的房屋，并用一座巨大的“怪物豪宅”取而代之，他被勒令拆除
更令人震惊的是，这座体量巨大的新建筑——以及位于花园里的两座大型附属建筑——均未获得正式规划许可。
在被拆除之前，阿扎姆先生的房产看起来和这个安静社区里的其他房产一样
多年来，邻居们非常恼火这栋房子，都称它为“怪物豪宅”。
一位匿名居民表示：
“我们这里都是不起眼的小平房，然后突然冒出来这么一栋巨大的房子，完全不协调。”
另外一名邻居也称：“这房子太丑了，毁了整条死胡同。”
还有居民批评阿扎姆先生未获许可就大胆动工：
“他甚至都没有规划许可就敢盖房子，简直不可思议。”
豪宅被勒令拆除
后来，这起事件很快引起了当地规划部门的注意。虽然尚未对附属建筑启动执法程序，当地政府——柯克利斯市议会（Kirklees Council）已表示正在调查中，且不会偏袒任何一方。
这位开着保时捷的商人在主要住所被问及此事时拒绝发表评论
2023年，阿扎姆先生申请追溯性规划许可，但市议会予以拒绝，理由是建筑风格与周边环境不符，并对邻居造成了压迫性、遮蔽性和霸道性影响。
他随后向国家规划督察局上诉，2024年由督察卡罗琳·斯凯利（Caroline Skelly）首次驳回上诉：
“虽然新住宅占地面积与原房相近，但山墙式设计使整体体积显得更庞大，难以与周围朴素的两层住宅融为一体。”
到2025年9月，第二次上诉仍被驳回。督察康纳·拉弗蒂（Conor Rafferty）最终裁定：“补救这一规划违规行为的唯一办法是彻底拆除该建筑，包括其地基。”
目前，阿扎姆被勒令在六个月内将豪宅完全拆除。然而，当《每日邮报》前往现场时，发现仍有承包商在进行作业，似乎未受拆除命令影响。
一位邻居和记者透露：
“他肯定很有钱，经常开着保时捷和法拉利来。看得出他不惜代价，但在没有许可的情况下启动这样的大项目，实在是太冒险了。”
在《每日邮报》试图联系阿扎姆先生时，他声称自己“尚未得知上诉被驳回”，随后拒绝就此事进一步发表评论。
丽莎评论
根据《1990年城镇与乡村规划法》（Town and Country Planning Act 1990），在英格兰，几乎所有新建住宅项目，包括拆除旧宅重建，都必须获得地方议会的完整规划许可（Full Planning Permission）。虽然部分小型扩建可能适用“许可开发权”（Permitted Development Rights），但前提是其规模、外观及位置需满足特定标准。
根据媒体公开资料，阿扎姆原本仅获准进行小幅扩建，却擅自推倒原有建筑并重建，这已远超原许可范围，必须重新申请完整许可。而他在未获批准的情况下开工建设，已构成“规划违法”。
现实中，许多人误以为“先建后补”是可行策略，实际上，英国地方议会完全有权拒绝追溯性申请，尤其是在项目对邻里或街区风貌造成明显负面影响的情况下。
所以，这起事件也再次为业主们敲响警钟：
- 开工前一定要确认是否需要规划许可。即使是家用扩建，也可能涉及审批要求。
- 务必严格遵守原始许可内容。不得擅自更改设计或扩大规模。
- 不要一直轻信“先建后批”的做法。追溯性申请并不保险，议会完全可以驳回并要求恢复原状。
- 尊重邻居与社区环境。拒批与拆除多源于邻里投诉和对社区风貌的破坏。
- 如有异议，应依法上诉。但在上诉裁决前，相关施工可能仍属违法。
本期分享就到这里。如果您想了解改建或者建房子的相关法律问题，欢迎随时联系丽莎律师行。我们的房产团队可以为您提供专业建议和实用解决方案。
好的，今天的文章就到这边，如果您对于文章内容，或者其他英国法律方面，有任何疑问，都欢迎进一步咨询丽莎律师行。
任何英国税务方面的问题，也可以联系咨询丽莎会计行。
觉得丽莎的文章不错？请不要吝于点赞和转发！您的支持是丽莎继续前进的动力，我们将尽力为莎粉们提供最新最全的实用信息。
> 丽莎律师行 —— 最具国际化视野的英国华人律师行，专精于商业、房产、移民、家庭和诉讼法。<
丽莎律师行联络邮箱：info@lisaslaw.co.uk
联络电话：020 7928 0276
联络微信号：lisaslaw007
扫一扫，《丽莎知道》微信公众号：
![Two recent immigration tribunal decisions have highlighted important points of principle in UK immigration law: the requirement for procedural fairness in decision-making and the legal distinction between a grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP).
Both cases demonstrate the need for applicants and their representatives to be vigilant in challenging decisions where the Home Office may have acted outside established legal boundaries.
Namecard for article - Angel Wan in English
Procedural Fairness in Hong Kong BN(O) Applications
In R (KW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR-2024-LON-002169, the Upper Tribunal considered a refusal under the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route. The applicant, a Chinese national from Hong Kong, had been refused on the basis of a previous conviction. The Home Office gave decisive weight to a Hong Kong Court of Appeal judgment it had located independently online, without putting this material to the applicant for comment.
The Tribunal found this to be a clear breach of procedural fairness, observing that the applicant had effectively been “ambushed” by evidence not disclosed to them.
While the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balajigari v Home Secretary [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was not directly applicable, it was considered a useful authority on fairness in immigration decision-making. The refusal was therefore quashed, and the case must now be reconsidered by the Home Office.
This judgment reinforces that applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to any evidence relied upon by decision-makers. Failure to do so will amount to procedural unfairness, providing strong grounds for judicial review.
The Legal Status of Biometric Residence Permits
The second case, Guerrero (s104(4A); statutory abandonment; right of appeal) [2025] UKUT 00276 (IAC), concerned an asylum seeker who received a refusal decision but was subsequently issued with a BRP stating “Refugee leave to remain.”
The First-tier Tribunal initially ruled that the BRP constituted a grant of leave, thereby treating the pending asylum appeal as abandoned under section 104(4A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal clarified the legal position. A BRP does not in itself grant leave to remain, it is an administrative document that evidences an earlier grant of leave.
Where a BRP is issued in error, no grant of leave arises, and an appeal cannot be deemed abandoned.
The Tribunal also confirmed that decisions to treat appeals as abandoned under section 104(4A) are not “excluded decisions,” and therefore fall within the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case will be re-heard.
This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between the substantive grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a BRP. Mistaken issuance of documents cannot override statutory rights of appeal.
Conclusion
Both cases serve as reminders of the importance of legal safeguards in the immigration system when it comes to immigration tribunal decisions. The KW case highlights that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond to evidence before adverse decisions are made. The Guerrero case confirms that a BRP is not determinative of immigration status and cannot substitute for an actual grant of leave.
These judgments illustrate the value of expert legal representation in holding the Home Office to account where decision-making falls short of the standards required by law.](https://lisaslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AdobeStock_284883829-scaled.jpeg "Gold coin Stack On the table save money Taking care of money - Lisa's Law Solicitors")
