A man who failed to pull down an unauthorised extension – 13 years after being ordered to – has been fined £3,000 by a Crown Court judge.
The Court heard it took an enforcement notice, multiple letters from and visits by planning officers and two Magistrates Court appearances before Mohammed Azhar, 57, finally began work to remove the extension late last month.
And even now, the work had not been completed.
Azhar had built a single storey brick structure at 89 Intake Road in 2011 as an extension to an existing extension on the terraced house.
But despite being a builder by trade, he did not have planning permission for the work.
In March 2012 Azhar was issued an enforcement notice ordering him to pull down the building and restore his back yard to its original state.
He failed to do so, setting in motion a 13-year planning dispute with Bradford Council that ended at Bradford Crown Court on Friday 7 March, where he was fined £3,000 for failing to comply with the order and warned that if the demolition is now completed, he will end up in court again.
Andrew Stranex, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, said the planning department had been made aware of the extension shortly after it was built, and the enforcement notice was issued in March 2012. He said: “The notice required the owner of the property to demolish the unauthorised extension and remove all related materials from the land.
“The notice should have been complied with by June 2012.”
A retrospective application for the plans was submitted later that year, but was refused by Bradford Council in January 2013 due to the impact on neighbouring properties.
Mr Stranex said: “Over the years contact was made with the defendant numerous times, but there was no compliance.
“In 2022 the decision was made to prosecute – this was 10 years and eight months since issuing the enforcement notice.”
In February 2024 he appeared at Bradford Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an enforcement notice. He was fined £200. At that court appearance he told Magistrates he would have the extension demolished within three months.
Mr Stranex said: “It was not.
“In May officers visited the site and the work had not been done. There were further visits in June, October and November and the order was still not complied with.”
He was ordered to appear at Kirklees Magistrates court last month, when Magistrates sent the case to Crown Court.
The court heard that since that last Magistrates court appearance, demolition work had begun, but Mr Stranex said: “This is only after two court appearances and a 13-year time period.”
Defending himself, Azhar said: “I did my best to comply. I built the extension for my parents who were very ill and couldn’t go upstairs. I’m sorry about that. I’m now in a position where I need it. I’m sorry for not taking it down.”
He said he was later told he did not need planning permission, and that the extension was “permitted development.”
Mr Stranex clarified that when new “permitted development” rules were introduced allowing extensions to be built without permission, Azhar was told he could build an extension. However – the extension he was allowed to build was not the one that had been in place 13 years, and the time limit to build that had now expired.
Azhar told the court he had no savings, and only received £230 a month in benefits. When pressed, he acknowledged that numerous family members lived with him in the property and helped pay bills, and so that £230 would be able to go towards whatever fine the court imposed.
Mr Stranex said: “The defendant was a builder, and his son is a builder, so you must consider they had knowledge of this type of work.”
Addressing Azhar, Recorder Singh said: “With your background being a builder you should have realised the seriousness of this. I’m sure you will comply and continue the demolition, if you don’t you face further prosecution.
“It is regrettable it has taken so long, and taken two court appearances for you to start the demolition.”
He fined Azhar £3,000 and ordered him to pay a £200 surcharge.
