Man fined hundreds after failing to take down extension for 15 years | EUROtoday

A house-owner who did not demolish a ‘jarring’ unlawful roof extension for 15 years has been ordered to pay £16,000 in fines and courtroom prices – and can nonetheless must knock it down.

Warren Benton, 72, was handed an enforcement discover in 2010 after he illegally constructed a 3rd storey extension on his property which is in a conservation space, a courtroom was informed.

Bradford Council mentioned the white extension did not comply with the planning permission he was profitable granted in 2009.

It was revealed Benton – who presently lives within the extension – had constructed it 60cm too excessive and it was not designed to slot in with the encircling terraced homes.

He appeared at Bradford Crown Court on Wednesday (May 8) the place he was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in prices for failing to adjust to the discover.

Judge Colin Burn mentioned: “Images of the property show the extension appears to be somewhat jarring in a row of terraced housing.

“This is a building in a Conservation Area – from a layman’s point of view this extension is out of odds with the surrounding buildings.

“It clearly undermines scheme of planning control not just in this area but generally.”

open picture in gallery

In 2009 Benton was granted planning permission to transform the property into flats which is situated in The Green Conservation Area.

The courtroom heard that 12 High Street in Idle was a former workplace constructing courting again to the nineteenth century.

The work included the creation of a 3rd storey on the highest of the constructing.

However when it was being constructed the council found it was totally different to the planning permission that was permitted.

Benton later submitted a brand new planning software but it surely was refused by Bradford council.

In August 2010 the council issued an enforcement discover asking Benton to take away it by that November with officers saying it created an “obtrusive feature”.

Clare Walsh, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, mentioned since then there had been a number of visits by Council officers and letters urging Benton to adjust to the order.

She mentioned there have been durations the place Benton appeared to be cooperating, both submitting additional purposes or saying he was trying to get the work accomplished.

open picture in gallery

Because of this, the Council “granted him some leeway.”

Council officers had estimated that it could price between £15,000 and £25,000 to demolish the extension.

This was the sum of money the council believed Benton had saved by refusing to adjust to the order.

The case had additionally price the council round £4,337 to research and prosecute.

Benton will nonetheless be required to demolish the extension.

Mr Milligan, defending Benton, acknowledged the size of the enforcement breach, saying: “The more time that has elapsed, the higher the costs of remediating this will be.”

He mentioned Benton had no earlier convictions, and has a variety of well being points.

For a time period through the 15 yr enforcement breach he acted as a carer for his spouse, who has since died.

Mr Milligan mentioned: “He didn’t tell his family about this issue, as he didn’t want to burden them. He didn’t ask for help when he perhaps should have.”

Sentencing Benton Judge Burn mentioned: “The extension you built was objectionable in terms of planning permission.

“The notice was issued in August 2010 and in May 2025 it has still not been complied with.

“It clearly undermines scheme of planning control, not just in this area but generally.”

Judge Burn informed Benton that he would have been fined £18,000 had he not pleaded responsible on the first alternative.

Awarding Bradford Council £4,000 prices he mentioned: “It is the Council’s obligation to uphold planning control.”