A HUGE extension to a terraced house that has previously been refused four times has now been approved, after the chair of a planning panel said he would make an exception to Council planning policy.
Work to 783 Little Horton Lane has previously been refused by planning officers and a government inspector.
The first application was refused in 2012, but despite this, the massive extension was built anyway.
Subsequent retrospective applications were refused, and when an appeal was lodged by applicant Mrs Akram, that too was dismissed, with a Government inspector saying the extension “creates an unacceptably overbearing impact on the neighbours.”
An enforcement notice issued by Bradford Council in 2016 ordering the extension to be pulled down. That has not been complied with.
Last year, Mrs Akram submitted yet another retrospective application to retain the work, which includes a double storey rear extension and front porch.
This latest application went before Bradford Council’s Area Planning Panel on Wednesday morning, with members urged to once again refuse the unauthorised work.
It was approved, despite one Councillor saying it was “insulting” that the applicant had such little regard for planning laws.
A report by planners said: “The extension results in an unsympathetically large development of materials that relate poorly to the setting of the parent dwelling.
“The resultant overall scale dominates the parent property and neighbouring dwellings resulting in a discordant and incongruous addition.
“Extensions should not appear to dominate the original house or neighbouring properties.
“The extension results in an unsympathetically large development of materials that relate poorly to the setting of the parent dwelling.”
It pointed out that the extension meant the neighbouring property received little sunlight between 1pm and 7pm.
The applicant had claimed that the extension was needed to provide amenity for a disabled resident. Planners pointed out that this might explain the ground floor extension, but not the need for a first floor extension.
Andrew Walker, who lives next to the property, told the panel: “This has been going on for 12 years now. The extension has been refused at least five times. It has taken light away from the back of our house, and created a wind tunnel.”
Members were told that there were medical reasons why the extension should be retained. In an unusual move, the panel asked press and public to leave the meeting so these medical issues could be discussed in private.
When the meeting re-convened Councillor Brendan Stubbs (Lib Dem, Eccleshill) said: “In my view it is perfectly reasonable to have an amended ground floor. But it seems to me like this development has been done with no regards for planning permission or without any reasonable consideration of their neighbours.
"It seems they are using a medical condition as an excuse to get us to approve a development we normally would never consider.
“I don’t believe that any medical needs would require such a big extension.
“I’m minded to refuse this permission. It has gone on for so long, and this is so out of keeping.”
Pointing at a photograph of the extension, Councillor Sinead Engel (Lab, Clayton and Fairweather Green) said: “I can’t imagine any circumstance where I would agree to approve that.
“It wasn’t an accident the applicants breached policy. Previous applications were refused, and they did the work regardless in full knowledge that it would not be approved.
“I find it quite insulting that people give such little regard to the planning laws that are in place to protect all of us.”
But chair of the panel Councillor Shabir Hussain (Lab, Manningham) said he would go against the officer’s recommendations, claiming he had seen worse extensions and that he was convinced by the medical issues discussed in the private session of the meeting.
Legal officer Bob Power told Cllr Hussain that the medical grounds highlighted by the applicant were not a material planning consideration.
He added: “It has been before a planning inspector who considered this unacceptable.”
He said the work went against the Council’s planning policy.
Cllr Hussain replied: “Well I’m making an exception.”
Two members of the panel, Cllr Engel and Cllr Stubbs, voted to refuse the plans. Cllr Hussain and Councillor Sabiyah Khan (Lab, Wibsey) voted to approve the plans.
As chair, Cllr Hussain had the deciding vote, meaning the application was approved.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article