Two parties contact police as planning dispute unfolded

A bitterly-contested plan for a major house extension - which saw two parties make complaints to police - has been approved by Rotherham Council, despite some misgivings.

The application was to extend an existing house with a new front porch, side and rear extensions, along with a raised roof to accommodate extra bedrooms.

In addition, a garden room was included, with the overall proposal leading to objections that the development would be overbearing, particularly in relation to a bungalow alongside the property, in Spinneyfield, Moorgate.

Both applicant Naila Shaukat and bungalow occupant Roger Webster addressed councillors at a planning board meeting, with each stating they had reported problems they experienced to police.

Mrs Shaukat told councillors that “false accusations” made against her builders had been reported to police.

She said they had “faced abusive language”, experiencing “hostile behaviour” over her plans to create a “forever home” for three generations of her family.

Meanwhile, Mr Webster told the meeting he had a brick thrown through the window of his property in the early hours of the morning - which he attributed to his objection - which had been reported to police.

Before approving the planning application, councillors heard from planning officers that the rear extension of the property had been scaled back from four to three metres in depth, to adhere to planning guidelines.

They also advised that concerns about the height and proximity of the extension to the existing bungalow were not enough to warrant rejecting the application.

The garden room, measuring 12 metres across, would not have required planning permission had it not had a pitched roof - which took its height to a point where permission was necessary.

Cllr Drew Tarmey said: “It looks fine, I would be happy with my neighbour doing this. There are some large houses on that street.”

Cllr Robert Taylor expressed “sympathy” with the bungalow’s occupant, however, saying: “There will be some invasion of privacy, I think.”

He also questioned the size of the garden room, but was told there was no definition in planning rules over what constitutes that use.

However, if the building was used for habitation or business use, it would require specific planning permission.

Cllr David Fisher suggested a path down the side of the bungalow would be “turned into a ginnell” by the construction of the extension alongside.