Porsche-driving businessman ordered to demolish 'monster mansion' built without planning permission

A Porsche-driving businessman who bulldozed a modest home and replaced it with a hulking ‘monster mansion’ has been ordered to tear it down after building without planning permission. Amir Azam, 39, the director of luxury bed-maker Stonehouse The Bed Co, bought a modest property in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, for £235,000 in 2021. Rather than pursuing a permitted extension, he demolished the house and replaced it with a sprawling 16-meter-long, gable-fronted dwelling that now looms over neighboring bungalows and traditional family homes in a quiet cul-de-sac. Two large outbuildings were also erected in the garden without consent, according to aerial photographs referenced by the Daily Mail. While those structures have not yet been the subject of enforcement action, Kirklees Council says it is aware of them.

Following losses on planning appeals, Azam has been given six months to demolish the property, including the foundations. The Planning Inspectorate’s ruling comes after a long dispute that has unsettled residents for more than three years. The decision marks the end of a process in which the builder sought retrospective planning permission, argued that the home fit the street, and faced repeated objections from council planners and neighbours.

The case began when Azam applied for retrospective permission in 2023. Kirklees Council refused, saying the mansion did not fit the character of the area and that the building had an oppressive, overshadowing and overbearing impact on adjacent properties. Officials said the proposal did not integrate sympathetically with the cul-de-sac’s two-storey dwellings. An appeal last year was dismissed, with Planning Inspector Caroline Skelly noting that the new home was substantially larger overall, even though its footprint was similar in width to the original. She concluded that the gable front and depth to the rear created a bulky appearance incongruous with the surrounding homes. The inspector also found fault with a separate annex built without planning permission and ordered that it be removed.

A second appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was rejected earlier this month, leaving Azam with a six-month deadline to demolish the dwelling and remove the base and foundations. Inspector Conor Rafferty stated that the only viable remedy for the planning breach was to remove the development in its entirety, citing harm to the area’s character and to neighboring residents’ living conditions.

Locals recalled a once-quiet street unsettled by the project for years. One neighbour, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the property as enormous and out of keeping with the rest of the street, noting that the new dwelling appeared to be twice the size of the original. “Planning rules are there for a reason,” they said, adding that it would be extraordinary to attempt retrospective consent for a full house rather than a fence or small addition. Other residents pointed to the visible mass and the long timeline as evidence of a project that spiraled beyond what the neighborhood anticipated.

When Daily Mail reporters visited the site, contractors were observed working inside the property despite the demolition order. Neighbours emphasized that the dispute has stretched over more than three years, with many expressing relief at the outcome, even as they noted the impact the saga had on the street’s daily rhythm. Azam declined to comment after being approached by reporters, saying he was unaware of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.

Azam’s finances and status as a business owner were referenced by locals who observed an apparent absence of restraint on the project, including the use of premium vehicles. Some suggested the builder’s wealth was evident in the car he drives and in the perceived scale of the project. The case underscores the tension between private investment in property and adherence to planning controls, particularly in quiet suburban areas where deviations from design norms are conspicuous.

Kirklees Council officials said they would monitor the site once the demolition begins and would take enforcement action if any further unapproved structures are added or if the order is not complied with. The authority has previously indicated that enforcement action can be pursued for other unpermitted works if they appear to be developing characteristics that harm the street’s character or residents’ amenity. The latest ruling does not prevent further planning requests related to the site, but any future development would have to pass the usual planning process and public scrutiny.

The broader takeaway from this dispute is a reminder that planning regulations—when properly enforced—serve to maintain the visual and social fabric of neighborhoods, even as individual property owners pursue ambitious builds. For residents of the Dewsbury cul-de-sac, the immediate concern has shifted from who initiated the project to how soon the street can return to its prior rhythm and appearance. The six-month demolition window gives both the council and neighbors a concrete timeline to gauge the street’s recovery and the community’s sense of resolution.