Yorkshire woman fined after failing to demolish extension she built without permission five years ago

Zareena Syed appeared in court on February 2, charged with breaching an enforcement notice that was issued in 2018 after a front extension was built on her home, 402 Harewood Street, without permission.

Magistrates were told that since the extension was built, two retrospective planning applications that would allow her to retain the structure were refused, and an appeal to the government against these decisions was dismissed.

Syed, aged 63, said when the extension had been built, she did not realise she needed permission. The builders who constructed it also failed to inform her – she told magistrates. However, she was told ignorance of the law and planning rules was not a defence.

At the hearing at Bradford Magistrates’ Court, Harjit Ryatt, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, said: “The council received a complaint in 2017 about an unauthorised front extension. The council sent a letter on March 30th explaining that it was unauthorised, and that no planning had been submitted.”

He said Syed then submitted a retrospective planning application for the work, that was refused in June 2017 over concerns it would “disrupt the uniform frontage” of the street. A second retrospective application was submitted in September 2017, and was again refused. With the extension still in place, the council issued an enforcement notice in April 2018 – ordering Syed to demolish the structure by that May.

She appealed to the Secretary of State to overturn the enforcement notice.

In November 2018 that appeal was dismissed, with Planning Inspector Daniel Hartley saying: “(The extension) extends across a large proportion of the front elevation of the dwellinghouse and appears dominant and intrusive on the host property and in the street-scene. Owing to its size and position it detracts from the distinctive characteristics of the area/the terrace. I conclude that the development has had a significantly detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area.”

Due to the failed appeal, she was informed the structure needed to be demolished by February 2019. Mr Ryatt said the council arranged three interviews with Syed to discuss how to progress, but she did not attend.

He added: “This is an ongoing breach of planning control over a substantial period of time.”

Addressing the defendant, Chair of the bench Alison Roberts said: “You had an extension that you didn’t have permission to have. You were asked to demolish it, why did you not demolish it?”

Syed said: “I can’t afford to.”

Mrs Roberts said: “Our concern is you have known about this situation for five years and you have not done anything about this. You had the chance to attend three interviews with the council that you didn’t go to. You had three appeals that failed. The problem hasn’t gone away – that is why we are here today.”

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

She was advised she would still have to demolish the extension, or she would likely end up in court again.