It is a well-located address in one of Norwich's most desirable postcodes.
But The Connifers has not had a very happy recent history.
Just a few years after the property was raided by police, who found a large-scale cannabis farm factory inside, council officials have ordered the owners to remove its new roof because it is 1.15m (3ft 9in) too tall.
The building, on Upton Close, between Norwich's Newmarket Road and Unthank Road, has been rebuilt since the drugs raid.
But the owners - who are not connected to the cannabis farm - have been told by Norwich City Council that the roof is just over a metre taller than approved plans allowed and that it must be removed.
Now, Liu Jianping, the owner, is set to enter battle with the authority to keep the roof in place, having appealed to the government's Planning Inspectorate to overturn the decision.
Mr Liu was given planning permission in 2019 to replace the building on the site, which had housed the cannabis factory.
He was told the new home should not be taller than the property it replaced.
Then, last year, Mr Liu asked for permission to amend the plans, to reflect what had been built, including the higher roof. He later said the taller roof was the result of an "accident" during the construction.
READ MORE: Officials order couple to close holiday cottage they have run for a decade
Council officials refused, arguing the 9.05m (29ft 8in) roof was “substantially taller” than the previous one (7.9m, 25ft 11in).
A planning statement said: “The amended design results in a new roof form that is significantly taller than the ridge heights of the original roof and the neighbouring dwellings within Upton Close.
"The prominent position of the site – on a bend in the road – results in the extended dwelling appearing as an overly dominant structure that is out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area."
The council ordered the owners to replace the roof with one of the approved height.
Neighbours in the quiet cul-de-sac have sided with City Hall planners, with some saying the home should be torn down entirely and started all over again.
They voiced their frustration at design and the length of time the development has taken. One said the scheme, which has been four years in the pipeline, was a "monstrosity".
Another, who asked not to be named, said: "The house and the roof are completely out of context with this nice residential area. People take pride in their homes around here.
“They demolished the house that was there even though there was nothing wrong with it.
“Now after years of work, there’s still no doors or windows, the progress has been painfully slow, and it’s still just an empty shell."
Another said the home should be knocked down and the owner should be made to start again, branding the building “a horrible nightmare”.
She added: “We would have been more tolerant in the past but it's been going on for years now and we’re all a bit more annoyed.”
Paul Baker, another neighbour, said: “Every time I spoke to the owner last year they said they will be done by Christmas but it's still not finished.
“The roof is too high and they should be made to take it down. It’s an eyesore and it needs to be fixed, it’s simply too big for the close.”
READ MORE: B&B owner fighting to expand premises he insists is not a restaurant
An appeal submitted by an agent on behalf of Mr Liu argued that the breach of planning was "accidental" and it was only too tall because of an error with the prefabricated roof being "angled in a way that raised the pitch".
The appeal argues that permission should be granted for the roof as it is, which is not much different to others on the street, and having to replace it completely would be "excessive".
The agent also proposes a compromise to reduce the height by 0.5m with a flat roof design.
The statement said: "[The roof] represents less than substantial harm to the character and identity of the site and neighbouring area”.
Share