A KEY Council planning policy has been questioned by a government inspector.

Last year Bradford Council refused a retrospective planning application to build an extension to the front of a terraced house in Laisterdyke.

Planning officers said the work to 149 Rochester Street, next to Attock Park, went against a district wide policy that prevented homeowners from building large front extensions to their properties, unless they were in the form of a small porch.

After the plans were refused by the Bradford Area Planning Panel in December, applicant Tariq Mahmood appealed the decision.

And now a government inspector has overturned the Council’s refusal, and said there should not be a blanket ban on such developments.

She said that in cases like this one, where the extension was of good quality, applications should be taken on their own merits.

When the planning panel discussed the plans at December’s meeting, planning officers told them allowing such an extension could set a precedent.

Members were told the authority had issued several enforcement notices requiring other properties to remove their extensions, and a number of appeals against the Council policy had been thrown out by planning inspectors.

Mr Mahmood had said the porch was needed because one of his children had an illness that was exacerbated by the cold. He had been “misled” by builders who told him planning permission was not required.

Planning inspector Racheal Bartlett overturned the Council’s decision to refuse the plans this week.

In a report detailing her decision, she spoke about her visit to the property, adding: “I observed that there are many similar extensions within the surrounding area, some of which appear to have been in existence for quite some time and some of which are better quality design, materials and appearance than others.

“Due to the position of the property at the end of the street and its distinct separation from adjoining houses the extension does not appear incongruous in the street scene.

“The Council’s adopted Householder Supplementary Planning Document 2012 states that, whilst it provides guidance on most common types of householder proposals, the strict application of this guidance will not be appropriate in all circumstances and applications should be judged on their own merits.

“The Council has cited conflict with Design Principle 1and advice which state that extensions to the front of dwellings are unlikely to maintain the character and quality of the original house and wider area, particularly where the uniformed appearance of the street is an important characteristic.

“Although there is some conflict with the general aims of the document, I find that the development is of high quality and does not harm the character and appearance of the area.

“I therefore conclude that the development would accord with policies of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document, which seek to ensure that developments are of good design which is appropriate to its context in terms of scale, details and materials.”