RESIDENTS are fuming after their neighbour may be allowed to keep an eyesore extension that they all hate.
Mohammed Shorab was granted permission for the two-story side and single-storey rear add-on to his property in Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent.
2
2
But instead of following the approved plans, the taxi driver constructed a “complete bloody mess”.
Appalled locals moaned to the council about the “overpowering eyesore” and Mohammed was supposed to have nine months to knock it down last May.
Ignoring the approved proposals, Mohammed added a porch to the front and a canopy across the width of the property.
This was supported by five white fluted Grecian-style columns, which his neighbours have described as “intrusive”.
The floor level has also been raised, a mono-pitch roof installed, and the size and position of the windows differ to those given the green light.
Planning committee members at Stoke-on-Trent City Council authorised enforcement action last April, which could have resulted in the entire development being demolished.
But following months of negotiations with planning officers, Mr Shorab has now agreed with make several changes to the extensions in order to make them acceptable.
The main bulk and height of the extensions would be retained, but with changes to the roof over the single-storey extension.
Most read in Money
While all the columns would be removed, with the canopy needing to be reduced in size.
The canopy would be supported on traditional gallows brackets.
And the windows on the extension would be altered “to introduce more balance and symmetry”.
A partly retrospective planning application has now been recommended for approval by the planning committee, which will make a decision on the case today.
But Mr Shorab’s neighbours are still unhappy with the revised scheme, with 15 letters of objection submitted to the council.
Fuming residents say the property “is not in keeping” with the cul-de-sac, describing it as a “complete eyesore”
They also claim that the size of the extension has caused “overcrowding” on the site.
And they claim that since it was built there have been three or four cars parked outside, that cause difficulty for motors exiting the drives opposite.
Other issues raised by the objectors include the loss of privacy and light, water run-off, and the impact the ordeal has had on the mental health of elderly residents.
The report to the planning committee states: “The alternative scheme proposed within this application is considered, on balance, to be acceptable in terms of its impact on visual and residential amenity and on highway safety such that it accords with both national and local planning policy.
“The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.”
