Second homeowner on street fined for unauthorised front extension

Sajida Shahid pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice when she appeared at Bradford and Keighley Magistrates' Court last week.

The court was told that a front extension had been built on her property – 386 Harewood Street, without planning permission.

In 2018, Bradford Council issued an enforcement notice ordering her to pull the extension down.

After almost five years, she has failed to comply with this notice, leading to the court appearance.

Harjit Ryatt, prosecuting on behalf of the council, told the court that the planning department had received a complaint regarding the extension, which had been built without planning permission.

He said: “The depth and width of the extension reached almost the boundary of the front curtilage.

“No planning permission had been sought. The owner was told the extension was unauthorised and she was asked why it had been constructed and what grounds for its construction were.”

He said a retrospective planning application was submitted to the Council for the work, accompanied by a letter of support from Bradford East MP Imran Hussain.

It said the applicant had made an “honest mistake” and did not think the work needed planning permission.

Harewood Street is a street of terraced housing in the Laisterdyke area.

Refusing this application, planning officers said: “The proposed front extension would not maintain the uniformity appearance of the street thereby creating a strident and disruptive appearance to the front.

“As a result of its overall scale, mass and detailed design the porch appears incongruous in the street scene and has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area.”

A second retrospective application followed, and was again refused and the Council advised Shahid to remove the extension by December 2017.

When this didn’t happen, the Council issued an enforcement notice in May 2018. Shahid was given three months to remove the extension.

When this did not happen, the Council wrote to Shahid in April 2020, February 2021 and August 2022, but received no response. The decision was taken to prosecute Shahid.

He said the case cost the Council £1,455 to bring to court.

Shahid represented herself through an interpreter. When asked to give her side if the story, she told the court she was not aware of the enforcement notice as she could not speak English. She said her husband had dealt with everything related to the house.

Bradford and Keighley Magistrates Court (Image: newsquest)

The Council explained that Shahid had been charged because she was the home owner – and any responsibility over the enforcement notice fell to her.

Madeeha Mahmood, defending, said: “She had no knowledge of the need for planning permission – all communication was read by her husband.”

She said her husband had contacted a local Councillor who he believed was going to deal with the issue for him.

Chair of the bench Vicky Reynolds told Shahid: “The house is registered in your name which means you are liable for this offence.”

She said she had taken into account her limited income, and fined her £86. She will only have to pay £134 towards the Council’s costs and a £30 surcharge.

Mr Ryatt added: “The enforcement notice still remains in place, and the extension will need to be demolished as soon as possible.”

Mrs Reynolds said if the extension is not pulled down, the Council has the power to knock it down and then charge her for the work.

She added: “You can’t keep ignoring this enforcement notice. This has been going on since 2017 – you need to start plans to get this demolished right now.”

A similar case was brought to court earlier this year.

In February Zareena Syed pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an enforcement notice ordering her to pull down a front extension at 402 Harewood Street.

That enforcement notice had been issued in 2018.

Syed was fined £300 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs to the Council.

And another case involving a home owner on Harewood Street failing to pull down an extension after being issued an enforcement notice is currently working its way through the courts.