In 2011 Bradford Council approved plans for a replacement timber shop front on 6 Rawson Place, which dates back to the 1870s.
But a shopfront of glass and aluminium was built instead.
Couldn't the applicant read English? Couldn't his architects?
In the past few years, three planning applications were submitted by Jamil Ashraf to retain the shopfront, but Bradford Council refused the application each time.
What's not clear about 'We told you to build it this way, you ignored that ruling, now fix it'..?
Now Mr Ashraf has submitted an appeal to the government calling for Bradford Council’s most recent decision to be overturned.
A decision will be made by a government appointed planning inspector in the coming months.
How much is all this costing the taxpayer?
Here in deepest Somerset we have something similar.
ReplyDeleteA gentleman bought some agricultural land, moved a container, a caravan, and some other stuff (such as his own sewage and fresh water installations!) there and started living there.
Lo and behold the Planning Office pops up and says “Excuse me, Sir, but you need planning permission for this” so the gentleman applies for retrospective permission and, unsurprisingly, is refused. He appeals and it is now at a Planning Appeal. His magic card is “I claim traveller heritage”. If he wins his appeal there will be even more people locally p’d off with the system.
Someone claiming traveller heritage seems to be unaware of planning rules? Hasn’t he heard of Dale Farm?
That is a good question and I'd also be interested in why the council should be managing at this level of detail.
ReplyDeleteThis is another example of government overreach and clearly they have too much time and money to waste.
There have been several other cases, connected with mosque planning applications, where local councils have, after objections from local people, refused permission for said 'Jihad centres' but who have been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate, in effect forcing the Jihad Centre onto a reluctant population and a council that had refused permission for teh building ofa Jihad Centre
ReplyDeleteThe real question is why the planning commission is in control of details like what a storefront must look like on a privately owned building.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, why has no planning compliance notice been issued? The moment the first application was not complied with the owner should have been served a notice to comply and that should have been enforced, if necessary by the council removing the window and sending the bill to the owner. Why have they allowed him to stick 2 fingers up at the planning system for so long?
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder how many friends and relatives this chap may have either in the planning dept, or as elected councillors........................
Looking at the premises either side of the shop it seems that modernisation has been allowed to take place already in this street. I think that the floodgates opened some time ago, it’s a bit late for the planning authorities to start exercising some control.
ReplyDelete"If he wins his appeal there will be even more people locally p’d off with the system."
ReplyDeleteUnsurprisingly. How can an identity group possibly claim more rights than anyone else?
"...and I'd also be interested in why the council should be managing at this level of detail."
So that people don't game the system and encroach on their neighbours' lives, surely?
"...but who have been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate..."
Leading to the inevitable question: Who's the terrorist?
"The real question is why the planning commission is in control of details like what a storefront must look like on a privately owned building."
They have a role to play in ensuring that a building fits in with its surroundings. And it's one I'm happy they should have.
"More to the point, why has no planning compliance notice been issued?"
ReplyDeleteI wondered that too.
"Looking at the premises either side of the shop it seems that modernisation has been allowed to take place already in this street. I"
Perhaps they should serve one on them too, then?