Latest news with #WarrenBenton
Daily Mail
17-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Widower is forced to spend £25k demolishing his home after council rules 'objectionable' extension is THREE INCHES over limit
A distraught pensioner faces a £25k demolition bill over an illegal roof extension that overhangs his home by just three inches. Warren Benton, 73, was hit with a £16k fine over the third storey add-on, after council officials ruled the build did not match the exact specifications of approved plans. His top-floor flat was adjudged to be 60cm taller than the signed off plans, with cladding that extends fractionally over the original footprint, instead of being set back as required. Bradford Council says the breaches mean the 'obtrusive' extension must be torn down, despite no complaints from neighbours in Idle, West Yorkshire. Town hall chiefs accused Mr Benton of wilfully ignoring the issue for 15 years and breaking conservation area rules. However, the retired electrician has defended the build and said the protracted enforcement action against him had become a 'nightmare'. He told MailOnline: 'The building was practically falling down when I bought it. There were junkies in the basement, beer cans everywhere. 'If I hadn't stepped in, it would have just become another derelict house. 'I admit I made a mistake but in my mind it is a minor breach. As far as I know, no-one has ever complained. Not one neighbour has said they have the slightest problem with what I built. 'To me, it seems really harsh that they want me to demolish what is my home.' In September 2009, Mr Benton bought the 19th-century office building at auction, with plans already approved to add a third storey. However, when work began, it quickly became clear the headroom was too small, something that was overlooked when the council initially rubber-stamped the development. Mr Benton said the 60cm increase in height was necessary to make the internal living space habitable. The plans also said the extension must be set back from the existing building, which Mr Benton failed to do. In November 2009, planning enforcement wrote to him, pointing out the unauthorised increase. Despite the efforts to preserve the property, the council issued an enforcement notice in 2010 demanding the extra storey be demolished. The council said the extension was 'too obtrusive' and 'ruined the street scene' in the Idle and The Green Conservation Area. Mr Benton said: 'I didn't just slap something together. I put in steel beams, fixed the walls, and made it solid again. 'It's a shame that I'm being treated like a criminal when I was just trying to do the right thing and help the building. But I do accept that I made a mistake. 'It's gone on for a long time and, yes, I probably have buried my head in the sand on it at times. 'This whole thing has been weighing on me for years.' In a court hearing earlier this month, Mr Benton was hit with a £12,000 fine and ordered to pay another £4,000 in costs for failing to comply with the council's enforcement notice. Mr Benton also faces a hefty demolition bill. While the council told the court the estimated cost of demolition would be between £15k and £25k, the family say the figure has been 'plucked from thin air' and could amount to considerably more. The judge at Bradford Crown Court, Colin Burn, acknowledged Warren had no ill intent but said the extension was out of line with the original planning permission. During the build, Warren cared for his late wife, who suffered from vascular dementia, while also trying to complete the renovation. He said he did not want to worry his family with the stress of the planning issue, which is why it went unresolved for so long. Son Connor, 32, who helped build the project, said: 'The stress of this is breaking my father. 'He can't even talk about it without falling apart. This has been going on for years now, and it's made everything worse. 'The council's attitude is unbelievable. They're talking about tearing down a house for a mistake that's basically just a few centimetres too high. 'People assume we're just trying to make money off this, but that's not it at all. We bought a run-down property at auction with the hope of fixing it up and selling it, so my parents could retire. 'At the end of the day, they're talking about demolishing a widowed pensioner's home - someone who's worked his whole life to provide for his family. 'The council's response has shown no sense, no compassion.' Sentencing Mr Benton, Judge Burn said: 'The extension you built was objectionable in terms of planning permission. 'Images of the property show the extension appears to be somewhat jarring in a row of terraced houses. 'The notice was issued in August 2010 and in May 2025 it has still not been complied with. 'This is a building in a conservation area - from a layman's point of view this extension is at odds with the surrounding buildings. 'It clearly undermines the scheme of planning control, not just in this area but generally.' He added: 'It is the council's obligation to uphold planning control.' Speaking at his apartment, above three tenanted flats, Mr Benton said: 'I've lost sleep over this. My wife's since passed away, and now I'm stuck with this fine and the threat of demolition. 'If I had to demolish my home, where would I live? I could move to the flats downstairs but that would mean kicking out one of my tenants, and that is not fair on them. 'I hope we can find some kind of compromise. I've asked architects to put together plans that hopefully the council will be happy with. We just hope they will engage with is.'
The Independent
10-05-2025
- The Independent
Man fined thousands after failing to take down extension for 15 years
A home-owner who failed to demolish a 'jarring' illegal roof extension for 15 years has been ordered to pay £16,000 in fines and court costs - and will still have to knock it down. Warren Benton, 72, was handed an enforcement notice in 2010 after he illegally built a third storey extension on his property which is in a conservation area, a court was told. Bradford Council said the white extension didn't follow the planning permission he was successful granted in 2009. It was revealed Benton - who currently lives in the extension - had built it 60cm too high and it was not designed to fit in with the surrounding terraced houses. He appeared at Bradford Crown Court on Wednesday (May 8) where he was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in costs for failing to comply with the notice. Judge Colin Burn said: '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.' In 2009 Benton was granted planning permission to convert the property into flats which is located in The Green Conservation Area. The court heard that 12 High Street in Idle was a former office building dating back to the 19th century. The work included the creation of a third storey on the top of the building. However when it was being built the council discovered it was different to the planning permission that was approved. Benton later submitted a new planning application but it was refused by Bradford council. In August 2010 the council issued an enforcement notice asking Benton to remove it by that November with officers saying it created an 'obtrusive feature'. Clare Walsh, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, said since then there had been multiple visits by Council officers and letters urging Benton to comply with the order. She said there were periods where Benton seemed to be cooperating, either submitting further applications or saying he was looking to get the work done. Because of this, the Council 'granted him some leeway.' Council officers had estimated that it would cost between £15,000 and £25,000 to demolish the extension. This was the amount of money the council believed Benton had saved by refusing to comply with the order. The case had also cost the council around £4,337 to investigate and prosecute. Benton will still be required to demolish the extension. Mr Milligan, defending Benton, acknowledged the length of the enforcement breach, saying: 'The more time that has elapsed, the higher the costs of remediating this will be.' He said Benton had no previous convictions, and has a number of health issues. For a period of time during the 15 year enforcement breach he acted as a carer for his wife, who has since died. Mr Milligan said: '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 said: '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 told Benton that he would have been fined £18,000 had he not pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. Awarding Bradford Council £4,000 costs he said: 'It is the Council's obligation to uphold planning control.'
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Yahoo
Man fined £16,000 over 'jarring' roof extension
A man who failed to demolish an unauthorised roof extension after being told to remove it 15 years ago has been ordered to pay £16,000. Warren Benton was issued with an enforcement notice by Bradford Council in August 2010 which demanded he pull down an extra storey he had built at a property within a conservation area on High Street in Idle. Benton appeared at Bradford Crown Court on Thursday where he was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in costs to Bradford Council for failing to obey an enforcement notice. Judge Colin Burn told Benton, 72, that it was obvious that the extension was "at odds with the surrounding buildings" in the Idle and The Green Conservation Area. The property is a former office building that dates back to the 19th Century, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Benton was given permission to convert it into flats in 2009, with consent to add a third storey. However, the additional storey was taller than planned and the appearance was different to the scheme that had been approved. A retrospective application for the work was submitted in early 2010, but refused by the council. Officers said the changes to the plan had created an "obtrusive feature" and an enforcement notice requiring demolition by November was issued. Clare Walsh, prosecuting, said council officers had visited the site multiple times and Benton had been sent letters urging him to comply with the order. She said at times it appeared he was co-operating and acknowledged that he could not have been expected to carry out the work during the pandemic. "But clearly the Covid period was 10 years after the enforcement notice was issued," she said. "It must have been known that what was being built was not in line with the planning application that had been approved." She said the extension was currently in use as a home. Council officers estimated it would cost between £15,000 and £25,000 to demolish the extension. Mrs Walsh said it should not be "cheaper to offend than to comply with law". She said the case had so far cost the council around £4,337 to investigate and prosecute. In mitigation, the court heard Benton acknowledged the length of the breach, had no previous convictions and had a number of health issues. His representative told the court for a time he was also acting as a carer for his wife, who had since died. Sentencing Benton, Judge Burn said: "The extension you built was objectionable in terms of planning permission. "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." He said it clearly undermined planning controls. Judge Burn told Benton that he would have been fined £18,000 had he not pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. Awarding Bradford Council £4,000 costs, he said: "It is the council's obligation to uphold planning control." The enforcement notice requiring the extension be demolished still stands. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. Bradford Council
BBC News
09-05-2025
- BBC News
Man fined over unauthorised roof extension in Idle
A man who failed to demolish an unauthorised roof extension after being told to remove it 15 years ago has been ordered to pay £16, Benton was issued with an enforcement notice by Bradford Council in August 2010 which demanded he pull down an extra storey he had built at a property within a conservation area on High Street in appeared at Bradford Crown Court on Thursday where he was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in costs to Bradford Council for failing to obey an enforcement Colin Burn told Benton, 72, that it was obvious that the extension was "at odds with the surrounding buildings" in the Idle and The Green Conservation Area. The property is a former office building that dates back to the 19th Century, according to the Local Democracy Reporting was given permission to convert it into flats in 2009, with consent to add a third the additional storey was taller than planned and the appearance was different to the scheme that had been approved.A retrospective application for the work was submitted in early 2010, but refused by the said the changes to the plan had created an "obtrusive feature" and an enforcement notice requiring demolition by November was issued. Clare Walsh, prosecuting, said council officers had visited the site multiple times and Benton had been sent letters urging him to comply with the said at times it appeared he was co-operating and acknowledged that he could not have been expected to carry out the work during the pandemic."But clearly the Covid period was 10 years after the enforcement notice was issued," she said."It must have been known that what was being built was not in line with the planning application that had been approved."She said the extension was currently in use as a home. Council officers estimated it would cost between £15,000 and £25,000 to demolish the Walsh said it should not be "cheaper to offend than to comply with law".She said the case had so far cost the council around £4,337 to investigate and prosecute. 'Objectionable' building In mitigation, the court heard Benton acknowledged the length of the breach, had no previous convictions and had a number of health representative told the court for a time he was also acting as a carer for his wife, who had since Benton, Judge Burn said: "The extension you built was objectionable in terms of planning permission."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."He said it clearly undermined planning Burn told Benton that he would have been fined £18,000 had he not pleaded guilty at the first Bradford Council £4,000 costs, he said: "It is the council's obligation to uphold planning control."The enforcement notice requiring the extension be demolished still stands. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
