A television pundit has saved her dream kitchen from demolition after an extraordinary five-year planning battle over a roof built just six inches too high amid objections from a 'serial complainant'.

Claudia Hearne, a regular on Channel 5's Jeremy Vine show, faced having to tear apart the rear extension of her £1million West London home after complaints from eagle-eyed neighbours.

She and her husband Nick, 41, were chased with enforcement action by council planners who ruled that the ridge of their newly-built kitchen was 16cm higher than on the approved drawings.

The couple risked having to spend tens of thousands of pounds demolishing the extension entirely - or ripping it open so the roof could be rebuilt at a slightly lower height.

Their years-long planning battle came as other locals came together to complain of 'inconsistent' planning decisions from the council, sparked by a small group of 'serial complainers'.

Residents claimed not only were there 'overbearing' planning rules being inconsistently applied by Hounslow Council, but that changes to finished building work by officers were being driven by a few 'serial complainers' residing nearby. 

Impacted residents were told the name of the main complainant by council staff amid frustration at the number of complaints the person in question had lodged, the Chiswick Calendar previously reported. 

At the time, Ms Hearne said: 'There doesn't seem to be any sense or consistency with their planning decisions or enforcement, and it's causing stress for a lot of people on the estate.'

The bitter dispute began in 2021 when the couple applied to extend the kitchen of their 1920s semi-detached house in the tightly-controlled Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area. 

Yet their ordeal truly began when their extension was completed, as Ms Hearne claims the same individual who complained about the renovation also lodged a grievance against their converted garage, which is now a home office. 

While the planning office concluded the office breached no rules, further complaints only followed, one about the approved painted render on the rear wall of their home and another over the couple having a timber front door rather than UVPC.

And when the Hearnes wanted to relandscape their front garden, the same man lodged nine objections against it in a bid to persuade the borough council to reject the plans. It was approved and won two awards in the local 'Front Garden Awards'.  

Now, a government planning inspector has reined in the borough council's demands on the TV pundit's extension, sparing the family from the most drastic work and bringing an end to what Mrs Hearne described as 'years of hell'.

Last year, the 36-year-old said: 'If we had been made to tear it down, it would have cost us tens of thousands of pounds.

'But it's not really the money. It's all the stress and the time we've had to put into this.'

Council officials approved a single-storey rear extension with a flat roof, describing its proposed height as 'modest' and pointing to nearby properties as acceptable examples.

But when construction began, contractors concluded that joining the new flat roof to the house's original pitched roof exactly as shown on the plans would make it difficult to comply with building regulations.

The roof was therefore built 16cm - around six inches - higher than approved.

Mrs Hearne has claimed that a council planning officer visited the property while work was underway and indicated that the revised arrangement would be acceptable.

Yet the couple's ordeal truly began in earnest in February 2022 when two objections were lodged. Two further planning applications aimed at resolving the discrepancy were rejected.

Then, in November 2024, the local authority issued an enforcement notice ordering the Hearnes to demolish the extension or rebuild it in line with the original 2021 plans.

Planning officers claimed the higher roof had created an 'unbalanced and jarring' appearance in the conservation area.

The Hearnes insisted that the difference was barely visible, caused no harm to neighbours and had been necessary to satisfy building regulations.

Their planning consultants identified at least 174 houses in the wider conservation area with comparable rear extensions.

Mrs Hearne also claimed that one objecting neighbour was behind the council's enforcement threat.

She suggested the same man had complained about other homeowners' building work. 'It felt like a very personal attack on us,' she said.

'But we then found that there had been a spate of planning enforcement notices issued to other residents quite late on in the process.

'We were told that 12 per cent of the houses on the estate had received them, which would be about 60 houses.

'There is a whole group of people who have been unfairly affected by over-the-top planning enforcement.'

At an enforcement appeal, the Planning Inspectorate agreed that the council's demands went further than necessary.

Since the enforcement notice was issued, the couple secured planning permission allowing the extension to remain, provided that the corner of the roof is tweaked.

Inspector Mark Caine ruled that this less destructive solution must now be included as a third option in the enforcement notice.

It means the Hearnes now have six months to comply by carrying out the smaller roof alteration approved under the newer permission, rather than demolishing the extension or rebuilding it entirely to the original plans.