Telford householder denied retrospective permission for new extension
A householder has been refused retrospective planning permission for work carried out on a house in Telford after officials alleged that it had broken the rules.
Imran Price had applied to Telford & Wrekin Council to regularise ‘unauthorised’ works to a house in Harvey Crescent, Arleston, after planners found that the details did not match up with what he had been given permission for.
Agent Simon Smith, of Shrewsbury-based En-Plan, informed the council that work on a single-storey side extension and front porch had been finished in September.
Planners found that the side extension was approximately 6.72 metres in length, 3.78 metres in width and 4.53 metres in height with a dual-pitch roof.
But Telford & Wrekin Council planners said that the previously approved proposal – to create a garage – instead had a hipped roof design. The built extension also had an eaves height of about 4.53m, some 77cm (30 inches) higher than approved.
Planners wrote that it is “considered disproportionate in size in relation to the existing host dwelling, being substantial in scale and massing”.
They added that matters were raised with the applicant/agent but it had not been possible to resolve the issues.
Planners also noted that the site has been “heavily developed previously” through permitted development rights and approved extensions in 2019 and 2023.
In giving approval to an amended scheme in 2023 planners had considered it to be of “modest scale” and considered that “no significant adverse harm would occur upon neighbouring residential properties”.
Officials had advised that it was “unlikely the property could be extended further” and it would mean the “potential for this plot has likely been maximised”.
They added: “The as-built scheme is in breach of the approved plans” and they took the view that it is “an overbearing development which is not deemed subservient to the dwelling nor does it respond positively to the context of the streetscene, the local area or with the adjoining neighbouring properties”.
The council sent consultation letters to 11 neighbouring properties but received no comments by the time of the decision.
The applicant has been informed that he can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if he disagrees with the council’s decision.
