A businessman has been ordered to tear down a huge 'football director's box' extension on his family home after planning bosses dismissed his appeal. 

Mani Singh built the large extension on the back of his £415,000 semi-detached home in Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands without planning permission. 

The structure, which includes a towering 3m high grey dormer, loft conversion and skylights, generated backlash after angry neighbours claimed it blocks out light and ruins the character of the street.

Residents were so upset about the extension, which they labelled an 'ugly eyesore,' that they hired a minibus to protest against it at a Walsall Council meeting in May.

It was only after they alerted the council to the build that father-of-two Mr Singh then applied for retrospective planning permission for the extension, which was refused in April. 

Mr Singh, who moved into the three-bedroom house in 2024, appealed the council's decision, arguing the work came under permitted development rights. 

But the planning inspectorate has now dismissed his claims and agreed with neighbours the extension 'unacceptably harms the appearance of the area,' meaning the dormer must be demolished or works to the site regularised.  

Resident Liz Deakin, 63, who has lived on the street for 35 years, described the council's decision as a 'victory' for those residing nearby. 

'We are very pleased that the inspector saw it from our perspective,' she said.

'He now has to either regularise the works or remove them, so it will depend very much on Walsall Council's next move in terms of enforcement.

'He has the opportunity to submit alternative plans, which we would then have the chance to object to if we felt they were unsuitable.

'If he doesn't do that, Walsall Council will begin the enforcement process. I just don't know how long that will take, as these things can often be quite drawn out.'

Ms Deakin described the 'main issue' with Mr Singh's extension as its appearance, labelling it as 'intrusive' as it looks down into neighbouring gardens and properties.

She said: 'It reminds me of a director's box you see at big football stadiums. Not at all appropriate for a quiet suburban area like this.

'Both the inspector and the committee used the word 'incongruous', and that's exactly what it is. The latest report from them is quite damning.'

'It doesn't fit in with the street scene and it's clearly visible from the corner, so the whole development can be seen from the road.

'I don't know what he's going to do to fix it, but from our point of view this is absolutely a step in the right direction.'

Fellow neighbour Cath Tandy, 75, who lives at the back of the house, previously said the extension has made it a 'bit like being in a prison exercise yard.'

The grandmother-of-two said: 'I used to have lots of sunlight coming into my garden in the evenings but the extension has blocked all that so it's dark most of the time.'

Mr Singh's plans were refused on the grounds of the breach of separation policy, incongruous development, loss of light and detriment to neighbouring amenities.

Inspector N. Bromley said while the dormer does 'not cause unacceptable harm' to the privacy of neighbours, it 'unacceptably harms the character and appearance.'

Their decision states: 'I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the area.

'The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

'Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.'

Walsall Council has been approached for comment.