Landlord ordered to remove unauthorised extension says ordeal cost him more than £50k
PUBLISHED: 15:40 24 March 2019 | UPDATED: 17:59 24 March 2019
A Norwich landlord told to demolish an extension built without planning permission claims it has cost him more than £50,000.
A planning inspector ruled in November that Kaushik Trivedi’s first floor extension built above the garage of his property in Ruskin Road must be taken down.
The work was carried out without planning permission and resulted in Norwich City Council issuing an enforcement notice against him in February last year.
Mr Trivedi, who unsuccessfully appealed the notice, admitted being “ignorant” in regard to planning law before the work was carried out.
But he claims he had been given incorrect information about what was required and put his trust in someone to ensure everything was in place.
He said: “It has been a very complicated situation. It has devastated our lives.
“Now being wiser of the rules, there is no way this could have been done without permission.”
He claims the construction and subsequent demolition of the extension cost him more than £50,000, but would not give an exact figure.
He said he had acted in good faith, adding: “I know it is very easy to say, but we are honest people and we don’t go against the law.”
He said he appreciated that the council was only “doing its job” when it issued the enforcement notice.
The unauthorised extension above the garage was built to create a separate two-bedroom unit for the house.
But in an enforcement notice the council said: “The extension that has been built is not sympathetic to the character of the original property due to its scale, form and prominent position on the principal elevation.”
Mr Trivedi’s agents had argued the materials “blend in with the surrounding environment” and ensured they were “not visually obtrusive to the character and appearance of the area”.
They said the council had been “inconsistent” in allowing a two-storey extension in nearby Lovelace Road, which they said was “very similar” to what Mr Trivedi had built.
But planning inspector Andrew Dale dismissed the appeal. He said: “There has been a failure to achieve high quality design, a lack of respect for local distinctiveness and character and the erection of a dominant and incongruous extension.”