Idle man who failed to pull down illegal roof extension for 15 YEARS fined £16,000
He was told to pull down the unauthorised extension in 2010 - but is yet to do so
A MAN who has failed to pull down an unauthorised roof extension on a Conservation Area property – 15 YEARS after he was ordered to – has been ordered to pay £16,000 by a judge.
Warren Benton was issued with an enforcement notice by Bradford Council in August 2010 ordering him to pull down an extra storey he had built on 12 High Street in Idle.
Fifteen years later, and the unauthorised extension is still in place.
On Thursday Benton appeared at Bradford Crown Court where he was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in costs to Bradford Council for failing to comply with an enforcement notice.
Judge Colin Burn told Benton, 72, that it was obvious that the extension was “at odds with the surrounding building” in the Idle and The Green Conservation Area.
The court heard that 12 High Street in Idle was a former office building dating back to the 19th century. In 2009 Benton was granted planning permission to convert the property into flats.
The work included the creation of a third storey on the top of the building.
However, later in the year when work was underway it became apparent that the extension being built was different to what was approved.
The roof extension was 60 cm higher than the plans, and the extension was not “set in” like the application had specified.
A retrospective application for the work was submitted in early 2010, but refused by Bradford Council. Officers said the unauthorised changes to the plan created an “obtrusive feature” in the Conservation Area.
In August 2010 the Council issued an enforcement notice requiring the extension to be demolished by that November.
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.”
She acknowledged that around two of the 15 years of non-compliance fell during to Covid Pandemic, when Benton could not have been expected to carry out the work.
But she added: “But clearly the Covid period was 10 years after the enforcement notice was issued.”
She told court “As of today the requirements have still not been complied with.
“It must have been known that what was being built was not in line with the planning application that had been approved.”
Benton is currently living in the unauthorised extension.
Council officers had estimated that it would cost between £15,000 and £25,000 to demolish the extension. This was essentially the amount of money Benton had saved by refusing to comply with the order.
Urging the Court to issue Benton a large fine, Mrs Walsh said: “It shouldn’t be cheaper to offend than to comply with the law.”
She said the case had so far cost the Council around £4,337 to investigate and prosecute.
Whatever the sentence, the enforcement notice would still be in place and Benton will still be required to demolish the extension.
The case had taken up a significant amount of Council officer time over the years – with at least 45 hours spent on this single case, Mrs Benton claimed.
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.
“Images of the property show the extension appears to be somewhat jarring in a row of terraced housing.
“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 out of odds with the surrounding buildings.
“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.”