Latest news with #conservationarea
BBC News
3 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Plans to double Great Yarmouth arcade pier size set for approval
Plans to almost double the size of a pier's amusement arcade are being recommended for approval, despite concerns over the scale of the owners of the Wellington Pier in Great Yarmouth submitted proposals last year to expand the site on to derelict land which was once used for an outdoor roller skating England objected, warning the new-look building would be "large and utilitarian", while failing to preserve the local conservation it has welcomed the revised proposals and a report by Great Yarmouth Borough Council advises councillors to give planning permission. The heritage organisation said it still had concerns about the size of the building and that any harm it might cause should be weighed against the public council's conservation officer also voiced opposition to the original plans, but has since worked with the pier's owners - Family Amusements Ltd - on a compromise. The pier owners have agreed to limit the height of the extension to 7.5m (24ft), rather than 9.2m (30ft) - and the footprint of the building would not be as report for councillors said the changes to the amusement arcade would bring a number of positives including employment and "bringing back an underused site in the conservation area into use".It said that its verdict was "finely balanced" but said harms to local heritage were outweighed by longer-term social and economic benefits to jobs and tourism.A decision is due to be made on the plans on Thursday. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
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.'
