A SUTTON-in-Craven resident says he stands at risk of losing £5,000 because of a planning ‘blunder’ by Craven District Council.

Martin Pearson, 62, said he followed all the rules by writing to the council asking how he went about replacing a wooden garden shed with a slightly larger stone-faced building at the front of his house.

He wanted a safe and lockable store for his motorcycle and garden tools and budgeted for it. It would match the existing stone wall running along the end of the row of houses in Oaklands, West Lane, Sutton-in-Craven.

“I was asked to fill in a householders' enquiry form and send a fee of £30 which I did on September 9 last year.

I told them I had a shed in the front garden which was there when my wife and I purchased the house and that I wanted to replace it with a stone structure.

“I sent photographs of the shed with an outline of where the new build would be in relation.

“The response I received back from the planning office read: “Thank you for completing and returning the Council’s ‘Do I need planning permission’ form regarding the above property.

“I can confirm that your property benefits from permitted development rights.

“Based upon the submitted information, the proposal is permitted information. However, in reaching this conclusion the following assumption has been made:

* The height at the ridge of the proposed building will not exceed 4 metres.

* If the proposed building will exceed 4m at ridge level then the proposal will not be permitted development.

“I trust this information is of assistance.”

Mr Pearson added: “I saw the four-metre ridge height rule but as this was only going to be 2.8m maximum I got the builder to start work. Then the fiasco started.”

Mr Pearson said the problem arose with a letter he received from a duty officer on February 1 this year.

The letter read: "I have been doing some checks and came across your planning enquiry.

"Following the response to your 'Do I need planning permission?' enquiry I have noticed a mistake from my colleague. As the building you are intending to build is within two metres of a neighbouring boundary the maximum height for the building is 2.5 metres and cannot be built up to the ridge height of four metres."

Mr Pearson wrote back saying he had already started the work and the finished height would be less than 2.8 metres. He said several emails went back and forth with him and the planning department debating over 22cms in total.

In another twist, Mr Pearson said on February 2 the duty officer wrote to say there had been a complaint from a neighbour that the building was at the front of his house and would require planning permission in any case.

"It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious," said Mr Pearson. I could have to demolish the building which is nearly finished and I would have lost £5,000. Now they want me to apply for planning permission, even though it was a blunder on their part to start with. They even lost the initial pictures I sent them. I told them it was at the front.

"This has caused me so much stress. We moved here from Bradford to our 'forever home'. I followed their advice in good faith. They took £30 off me and then said it was guidance only. The finished building will look much better than what was there. It won't be much above the wall height with a sloping roof and no windows to overlook anyone."

David Smurthwaite, strategic manager at Craven District Council, said: “We fully accept that our planning team made a mistake in giving Mr Pearson incorrect advice when he initially enquired about the need for planning permission, and we have written to him to apologise.

“The mistake came to light when we received a complaint about the new shed. We recognise that Mr Pearson acted in good faith and followed the guidance he was given. Unfortunately, due to the size and location of the new building, it does need planning permission.

“We have agreed to waive the planning application fee and have asked Mr Pearson to submit an application to retain the building as soon as he is able to do so. Once we have received the application, we will process it as soon as possible.

“We are sorry for the incorrect advice that was given, and for the upset this has clearly caused. We will review the procedures in place to monitor the quality of advice given, as a matter of urgency.”