Debate over illegal front extensions in inner city areas

Bradford Council has issued enforcement notices to six properties in the Laisterdyke area due to front extensions being built without permission.

But at a meeting of the Council's Bradford Area Planning Panel on Wednesday, some councillors expressed their sympathy for people living in the area's small, back to back terraced homes, who they said often had no choice but to expand the front of their houses.

And the panel's chair suggested it was an issue that should be looked at by the Council's decision makers.

The debate took place while the panel were discussing retrospective plans for a front porch at 149 Rochester Street, submitted by Tariq Mahmood.

Council planning policy is that front extensions to homes are "unacceptable" unless they are in the form of a small porch. Officers said this structure was much bigger than what would be considered a small porch and had to be treated as an extension.

The plans had been recommended for refusal due to the visual impact on the street, but ignited a debate among the panel, which heard that there was an increasing problem of illegal front extensions being built in neighbouring streets.

In the area around the application site there have recently been six enforcement notices against such extensions.

And Bradford Council recently won a planning appeal when another household challenged their decision to refuse their extension.

One councillor claimed households were being told by builders that they could build the extensions under "permitted development rights" - meaning they did not need planning permission.

Councillor Kamran Hussain (Lab Toller) spoke at the meeting on behalf of Bradford East MP Imran Hussain and the applicants of the 149 Rochester Street application.

He said: "There is no perfect definition of what a porch is. The applicants were told by the builders this was done to permitted development rights.

"They have no space for their children to study. They need to build out, and they can't build an extension round the back.

"People in this area get frustrated they don't have adequate space in their homes. They don't have the money to buy a new property, so they need to build extensions.

"Poverty is rising in the district, and if you ask people to tear down these extensions it is money they don't have."

Planning officer Amin Ibraham said: "This extension is larger than what we would allow, it isn't appropriate."

Councillor Riaz Ahmed (Lib Dem, Bradford Moor) said: "We have rules in place that we have to stick to.

"I wonder if it because people don't have access to planning advice? Are the builders doing the job giving people the wrong advice, and then not taking responsibility for breaking the rules?'"

Mr Ibraham said: "Advice is available from the Council. In these cases people have not asked for it. If they are relying on getting advice from a third party, then it is their responsibility if they are getting bad advice."

He said the current policies were first introduced back in 1995, so any builders should be aware of what extensions needed planning permission.

When asked if approving this single extension would set a precedent, he replied: "I believe it could. It would make it difficult to pursue enforcement action in the future."

Chair of the panel Shabir Hussain (Lab, Manningham) said: "We can't blame builders. People are spending money on these extensions, and they should know what they are spending it on.

"I'm very sympathetic to the applicants, because I lived in a house like this.

"I think this issue should be put to the full council. If inner city councillors have concerns that people are not being allowed to expand their homes, it should be discussed higher up in the council. It is not for this planning panel to change policies."

The applicants said they needed their extension because one of their children was disabled. The panel agreed to defer their decision on this application, so the applicants could produce evidence of this.