A father is at war with his local council after spending £250k on an illegal house extension.

Varun Sharma, 41,  built a first-floor extension and a wrap-around ‘spice kitchen’ at the rear of his property in Slough last April after getting planning permission from Slough Borough Council.

However, he now faces raizing it to the ground after a surprise visit from a council planning inspector.

The official, who was visiting another property, spotted that the extension was ‘a little bit over’ the agreed dimensions and told him to lodge a retrospective application with the updated sizes.

But the council rejected the amended plans and Mr Sharma is facing the prospect of a costly demolition to large parts of the family home, where he lives with his wife, Shivani, 41, and theirtwo young children.

With a window of three months now to contest the decision, the IT consultant said he  will gather the help of ‘experts’ to fight his corner.

He told MailOnline: ‘It looks modern and more attractive on the road, what’s the problem?’

‘Even if they decide to take action against me to demolish it, it’ll cost too much. I’ve spent all of my money on the works.’

Varun Sharma, 41, built a first-floor extension and a wrap-around ‘spice kitchen’ at the rear of his property in Marlsborough Road, Slough, last April – but contracted builders went ‘a little bit over’ the agreed dimensions

From left to right: Mr Sharma’s property in June 2023 is seen prior to the renovation versus how it looks after the £250,000 works

Mr Sharma laid the blame at the feet of his builder for the saga – not himself.

He said: ‘When I built it, I didn’t know that it was over the initially agreed size because I gave my plans to the builder.

‘It is bigger than it was supposed to be. It didn’t work out exactly to the plan which is why we put an application in again with the changes.

‘I’m planning to appeal their decision to reject it. Here in the Langley area, there are big builders that were approved for 41 flats near the train station and they built 51 without permission.

‘No action has been taken against them for building an extra ten flats, and instead the council are targeting individuals.

‘It’s especially frustrating when we pay so much council tax. They’re not improving our services and they’re targeting us. I know lots of people with planning problems right now.

‘The house doesn’t look bad. It’s not impacting anyone so I’m appealing against their decision.

‘I need to hire a planning expert body, people who know what they’re doing and we’ll try to fight for it.’

In Slough Borough Council’s decision to reject the application, the planning officers said the design and appearance of the house was ‘not in keeping with the design, character and appearance of the original building’.

Mr Sharma said Slough Borough Council ‘are targeting individuals’ and that he would be hiring a ‘planning expert body’ to fight his corner

Pictured from a nearby garden, Mr Sharma’s newly installed air-conditioning units which have been fitted on the side of his first-floor extension

They also took aim at Mr Sharma’s decision to change the exterior of the property, saying the change from brickwork to a smooth white exterior showed a lack of ‘respect to the local distinctiveness of the area’.

Council officers even went as far to say that the house brought ‘harsh alien features’ to the street, and detracted from the ‘open and pleasant streetscene’ on Slough’s Malborough Road.

‘I disagree with some of their reasons to reject,’ the father of two said.

‘For a start, where are the harsh alien features?

‘In total I’ve spent £250,000 on the first-floor extension, renovating the loft and installing a spice kitchen wrap-around in the garden.

‘We haven’t used cheap materials. I wanted to make sure it looks good, and it’s not like we hired some dodgy builder.’

Mr Sharma said the ongoing dispute, which could continue until the end of the year, is ‘affecting his mental health’ to the point he is distracted and unable to focus on his job.

Meanwhile his wife, Shivani, says even their kids at 12 and six-years-old are beginning to notice the stress in the household.

‘Our kids are asking “why are they doing this to us?” and we don’t know what to say,’ Mrs Sharma said.

‘The biggest fear is that they’ll tell us to demolish it if we don’t win the appeal. If that happens then where are our family going to live?

The council said the change from brickwork to a smooth white exterior showed a lack of ‘respect to the local distinctiveness of the area’ despite other properties on the street having similar

‘I haven’t worked in ten years so I can look after the kids but the pressure they’re putting my husband under is massive.

‘They should be going after the people who built the Langley flats without permission, not us. We’re not doing this for the money. This is our home, our family home.’

When contacted by MailOnline, Slough Borough Council said Mr Sharma’s new proposal was ‘unacceptable’ and had gone way beyond the existing agreements made in the first planning application.

A spokeswoman for the council said: ‘The property was granted planning permission in September 2023 for “construction of a single storey rear, first floor side and part rear extension and internal alterations”.

‘The council was made aware that development at this property had not been built out in accordance with the approved plans and therefore, to seek regularisation, invited a new application to assess whether the development, as built, was acceptable.

‘This new proposal sought retrospective consent for a front porch, single storey side and rear, part first floor side and rear extension, rendering to existing house, new windows and roof tiles, 3 AC units, new gates to driveway and associated internal alterations.

‘This proposal was assessed against national and local plan policy, as well as design guidance, and was found to be unacceptable and therefore refused. 

‘Other properties in the area which have been reported to us have and will be investigated and regularisation through a retrospective application will be required for any unauthorised development. 

‘Failure to regularise or remedy unauthorised development is likely to be subject to formal planning enforcement proceedings.’