Bradford Council hearing over extension dispute

9:00am Friday 28th September 2012 in News

The extension in question The extension in question

A senior Bradford councillor had skirting boards fitted in a garage and a staircase between a second-floor granny flat and the loft space above, a panel heard yesterday.

Labour group chief whip Councillor Sher Khan (Little Horton ) had been forced to apply for retrospective planning permission for a detached double garage with a first-floor residential area in the garden of his home in Cleckheton Road, Low Moor .

This was down to the development being different from what he had already received permission to build.

At yesterday’s Bradford Planning Panel it emerged that stairs had originally been built between the second-floor living space and the loft above, but had since been removed as they did not comply with building regulations.

It was also alleged that the garage had been plastered out and skirting boards fitted too as a sign that it was to be used for living accomodation and not parking.

Coun Khan, who did not attend the panel, was given planning permission last November to demolish a garage at his home and to build a “granny flat” above a new garage.

However it became clear that what was built was not in accordance with the approved plans. Officers outlined that although the overall height of the building is smaller than the original plans, the eaves were lower, meaning a steeper roof pitch, and a window had been added to the roof space.

Objectors complained amid fears that the building would be used as a detached three-storey home. One objection, which was read out at the meeting, said it was “inappropriate for a local councillor to flaunt planning regulations” and “what example does this set?”.

Councillor David Robinson (Ind, Wyke ), speaking on behalf of some of the objectors, said: “I am given to understand the garage interior is plastered and has skirting boards inside. A staircase was in situ from the first floor to the loft and has now been removed.

“A window has been built into the roof that looks into the property opposite. The roof pitch is also different to what was agreed.”

Amended plans were then submitted to the Council to comply with what was built.

At yesterday’s meeting, members of the planning panel agreed to pass the new plans after going a site visit.

Comments(30)

Bacon Bantam says...
9:17am Fri 28 Sep 12

Is there any suprise that illegal markets spring up without permission when the councillors themselves ignore the rules.

Report this post »

AntiDrug says...
10:22am Fri 28 Sep 12

Right There Mate, But
He Realy Got Away with it didnt he?
being you ar me, it would have been a demolition job, and start all over again
& take a **** long time to get permission again,
But we are the mugs for these so called Honest people ??? Not in their dictionary
& we pay for them to do these Please as you like Activities
Just see his name??

Report this post »

BertSanders says...
10:36am Fri 28 Sep 12

Well thats alright - planning refused but just carry on - and we will turn a bling eye.as we often do.(or usually do)
The ramifications of being able to build out 26 feet without planning are an outrage and I suspect will be well used in Bradford,

Report this post »

Albion. says...
10:46am Fri 28 Sep 12

There shouldn't be any such thing as "retrospective planning permission".

Report this post »

allinittogether says...
11:53am Fri 28 Sep 12

Albion. wrote:
There shouldn't be any such thing as "retrospective planning permission".
Hear! Hear!

Report this post »

room124 says...
12:04pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Was this detached double garage with a first-floor residence financed through his £28,696.34 Councillor allowances or through other private means. Isn't it about time that local Councillors were brought in line with MPs and forced to declare all outside earnings/gifts/donat
ions etc.

Report this post »

angry bradfordian says...
12:04pm Fri 28 Sep 12

This man has flaunted COUNCIL guidelines; something he doesn't even seem to be denying.

If you compare this with the Government's Chief Whip (who's only really offence is to be a complete idiot/snob), why isn't anybody calling for his resignation?
How can anybody ever be expected to comply with /understand planning regulations if a senior councillor can't be bothered to do it?

Report this post »

ertnec says...
12:24pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Again we see that if your one of them do as you please and forget the rules. This person has broken the planning rules, the property should be knocked down by the Council at his cost and he should be refused all other planning applications made. I know someone who built a house and because it was two inches to tall teh Council made him take the hole builiding down.

Report this post »

Victor Clayton says...
1:11pm Fri 28 Sep 12

I believe that there are one set of rules for one section of Bradford (maybe the UK) and another for everyone else. And i am not talking about politicians.

Report this post »

legallyblonde says...
1:53pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Not surprised about this, rules are there to be broken with certain members of the community, fake markets trading without permission, mini markets blocking pavements outside shops,it will only get worse now the condems have relaxed planning rules, I dread to think what shanty buildings will spring up round the area. The building should be treat like any other built without permission i.e knocked down, and how can they allow permission when the building materials are so different to the main house! we had a porch knocked back because we only had show stones here and there not stone like the rest of the house so had to clad it in stone so it matched, blimey I wish I could flaunt the rules too!

Report this post »

legallyblonde says...
1:55pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Albion. wrote:
There shouldn't be any such thing as "retrospective planning permission".
not at all - but I expect a few backhanders will have changed a few minds!

Report this post »

Bacon Bantam says...
2:17pm Fri 28 Sep 12

If I lived on that road I would be extremely annoyed as the building looks so out of space.

Report this post »

mad matt says...
3:00pm Fri 28 Sep 12

One law for them and another law for the rest of us - IT STINKS!

Report this post »

citizen smith says...
3:24pm Fri 28 Sep 12

So what exactly was the penalty that Councillor Sher Khan received after so blatantly flouting and abusing laws that as a so-called upstanding member of the community and elected representative of the city he should have been doing his utmost to uphold? Removing an internal staircase? A staircase that could no doubt be easily reinstated without anyone being aware.

Not simply a mistake but a total disregard for planning permission by a man that, in his position, should have known far better and shown far more respect. Or is it a case of one law for one and one law for the rest?

Is this the same Councillor Sher Khan that was complaining in a T&A story a few years back about people referring to his ward as 'lawless'? THIS is a prime example of the deep-rooted attitudes of lawlessness and lack of respect that is slowly destroying this city from within.

Shame on you.

Report this post »

BertSanders says...
3:31pm Fri 28 Sep 12

angry bradfordian wrote:
This man has flaunted COUNCIL guidelines; something he doesn't even seem to be denying.

If you compare this with the Government's Chief Whip (who's only really offence is to be a complete idiot/snob), why isn't anybody calling for his resignation?
How can anybody ever be expected to comply with /understand planning regulations if a senior councillor can't be bothered to do it?
Absolutely - the elected official should consider his position - the offence is much more serious than that of the Chief Whip - idiot that he has been.
Planning in Bradford should be investigated thoroughly - and I would expect it to reveal many shortcomings but not much surprise. BUT THERE IS NO CHANCE OF THAT HAPPENING.

Report this post »

jh137 says...
3:33pm Fri 28 Sep 12

I dont for one minute think this is an isolated case, we've all seen supposed 'garages' that we have doubts about. Like a previous commenter said there shouldn't be 'retrospective planning permission' ..... PULL IT DOWN!!

Report this post »

gfy320 says...
4:32pm Fri 28 Sep 12

This looks nothing but a detached residence, all thats missing is the front door ,total disrespect for planning laws ,why dont we all build a detached house in the garden and pretend its a garage ,
knock it down and resign from public office since you have no respect for it.

Report this post »

jefjames says...
5:07pm Fri 28 Sep 12

just looking at the picture, its having a laugh.

Report this post »

jefjames says...
5:12pm Fri 28 Sep 12

and if the owners get away with this so are they.

Report this post »

Joedavid says...
5:20pm Fri 28 Sep 12

How are people on the council when they not know about planning permissions?

Report this post »

Patrick Bateman says...
5:42pm Fri 28 Sep 12

And this was Councillor Sher Khan: Labour's group CHIEF WHIP (presumably in charge of party discipline and so on). God, what a dismal example he sets for the rest of them. And he didn't even have the courtesy to turn up for the meeting. NB where's that Liebour apologist and activist Alex Ross when you need him? Care to comment about your local Labour Party 'enforcer's behaviour Alex?

Report this post »

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...
6:09pm Fri 28 Sep 12

What the hell is going on when sombod'y who is in public office totally disregards the rules they are meant to enforce. We the people are fed up with laws that are only for one section of BRADFORD, and the rest do has they *****n'g well want, throw the slimy b*****d out. Illegal markets are rampant in BRADFORD. Do they get closed down NO, people actually protest about the law been unfare. What a s***hole we live in.

Report this post »

MatSlip says...
6:26pm Fri 28 Sep 12

A great example of the quality tradespersons Bradford have to offer, self certification is the worst thing ever to be brought into the building trade and with all the government cuts the standards are going to be even worse, if I lived near that box I would start a petition to knock it down - trades people who worked on that hang your heads in shame.

Report this post »

bcfc1903 says...
7:07pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Without doubt it needs levelling, even more so as this fella is a councillor, a total disgrace. I'm getting the impression he thinks he's above the law, let our cowardly council prove otherwise by reducing it to a pile of ruble. I notice we've got another protest in city park today along with the other one a couple of weeks ago about drones, what's that got to do with Bradford, it's almost like some folk want to drive footfall out of the city centre. Whatever next, a book burning session. What on earth did our great city of Bradford do to deserve this.

Report this post »

spinnekop says...
7:20pm Fri 28 Sep 12

I am sick to the back teeth of seeing one culture blatantly do what they please be it planning, driving, drug dealing or blowing holes in each other. Enough!

Play the game or go!

Report this post »

BertSanders says...
7:24pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Do newspeople ask questions? The other national chief whip has been hounded - but David Green makes absolutely no comment about his Councillor. His indiscretion has been passed on the nod - hoping it will be quickly forgotten. Surely Green cannot condone such action - if it is a democratic Council - but I conclude it is a corrupted Council.

Report this post »

bcfc1903 says...
7:41pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Yes, Bradford has got a fantastic facillity in city park yet recently you can't get into it for protesters, don't these people have jobs or what. How many more bleedin protest are planned. City Park should be for families not protests, couldn't they protests next to the Westfield hole, that is well out of the way and wont impose on folk wanting to relax next to the fountains. Time for Bradford Council to call a halt on this NOW, two protests in a month is taking the pi*s....AND DRIVING FAMILIES OUT OF THE CITY CENTRE.

Report this post »

supergreenie says...
8:50pm Fri 28 Sep 12

citizen smith wrote:
So what exactly was the penalty that Councillor Sher Khan received after so blatantly flouting and abusing laws that as a so-called upstanding member of the community and elected representative of the city he should have been doing his utmost to uphold? Removing an internal staircase? A staircase that could no doubt be easily reinstated without anyone being aware.

Not simply a mistake but a total disregard for planning permission by a man that, in his position, should have known far better and shown far more respect. Or is it a case of one law for one and one law for the rest?

Is this the same Councillor Sher Khan that was complaining in a T&A story a few years back about people referring to his ward as 'lawless'? THIS is a prime example of the deep-rooted attitudes of lawlessness and lack of respect that is slowly destroying this city from within.

Shame on you.
couldn`t have put it any better !

Report this post »

A Casual Observer says...
2:09pm Sat 29 Sep 12

allinittogether wrote:
Albion. wrote:
There shouldn't be any such thing as "retrospective planning permission".
Hear! Hear!
Or 'here, here', even.

Report this post »

allinittogether says...
11:48am Sun 30 Sep 12

A Casual Observer wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Albion. wrote:
There shouldn't be any such thing as "retrospective planning permission".
Hear! Hear!
Or 'here, here', even.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree