Owner of home in popular Yorkshire suburb refused permission for extension - despite most of it having been built already

One councillor said the situation was a “tragedy” that could have been avoided if the applicant had dealt with the planning process earlier.

Much of the work to 11 Staveley Road in the popular Edwardian suburb of Bradford, near Shipley and Saltaire, has already been completed, and members of Bradford Council’s Keighley and Shipley Area Planning Panel voted on a retrospective bid to keep the work at a meeting last week.

The proposals were submitted by Khalil Hussain and are for a rear extension to the house and dormer windows.

Planning Officer Mark Hutchinson told members that much of the development would fall under “permitted development” – not requiring planning permission.

However, a section to the corner the extension fell outside these rules, and enforcement proceedings had been started before this application was submitted.

Members were also told that an enforcement investigation was also ongoing regarding the unauthorised removal of trees at the site.

There had been objections from neighbours and the local neighbourhood watch.

The property already has a rear swimming pool building that was granted permission in the early 1990s.

Councillor Kamran Hussain (Lab, Toller) spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying: “When he wanted to make changes to the property he thought it was permitted development.

“As soon as he realised it wasn’t he put in an application, followed advice and has been trying to do everything by the book.”

Mr Hutchinson replied: “I’m not sure what advice he was given. It was an enforcement notice that prompted this application, so that may have been the advice referred to.”

Members raised concerns that the plans seemed to show a doorway leading to the roof of the extension, and asked if the applicant intended to use this roof as a patio style terrace.

They were told that the developer claimed this door would only be used to maintain the roof, and any future patio would require a new application.

One objector, Professor Bowden, said he could not understand why the applicant had not realised the extension would require planning permission.

He feared the development, parts of which were just yards from his garden, could lead to a loss of privacy in his home.

Panel member Councillor Kevin Warnes (Green, Shipley) said: “The tragedy of this is if this applicant had engaged with neighbours and took the advice of our planning officers then approval would have been straightforward.

“However, they haven’t done that, and we have a retrospective application, and the building is almost complete. I feel this extension does damage the outlook of neighbours.”

Members then voted to refuse the application.