A builder who spent more than a decade defying council orders to demolish his illegal home extension has finally torn it down – but now his son wants the council to foot the bill to build a new one because of his mobility issues.
Mohammed Azhar, 58, constructed the 13ft add-on to his terraced house in Bradford, West Yorkshire, in 2011, claiming it was needed to provide a downstairs toilet and wet room for his elderly parents.
But when his retrospective planning application was rejected in 2012, council chiefs demanded its demolition.
For years, the illegal structure remained standing as the father-of-two refused to budge, forcing Bradford Council to escalate enforcement action in 2022.
Last year, Mr Azhar was brought before magistrates and hit with a fine for failing to comply with the enforcement notice – but despite vowing to raze the illegal extension within two months, the building stayed in place.
The extension was finally demolished this month – just weeks before Mr Azhar falls to be sentenced at Bradford Crown Court on March 7 for again failing to comply.
However, in a final act of defiance, his family insist they will now demand a council grant to rebuild a replacement wet room.
Last year, Mr Azhar (pictured) was brought before magistrates and hit with a fine for failing to comply with the enforcement notice – but despite vowing to raze the illegal extension within two months, the building stayed in place
Mohammed Azhar, 58, constructed the 13ft add-on to his terraced house in Bradford, West Yorkshire, in 2011, claiming it was needed to provide a downstairs toilet and wet room for his elderly parents. Pictured: Before
But when his retrospective planning application was rejected in 2012, council chiefs demanded its demolition. Pictured: Post demolition
Speaking to MailOnline, Mr Azhar’s son – who refused to give his name – said his father had mobility problems and required access to a downstairs toilet.
He said: ‘He’s demanding a council grant and money now to build it back up.
‘It might have cost him to take it down but he’s going to make the council pay to build it back up again.
‘He took it down because the council had pestered him to take it down, but he wants a grant to build it back up again. That’s all he wants to say on it.’
Bradford Council refused planning consent in 2011, arguing that the shower room extension was already added on to an existing three-metre kitchen extension.
It said that Mr Azhar’s work effectively extended the property by seven metres and had an ‘overbearing impact’ on neighbours.
Mr Azhar appealed the decision but a Government inspector upheld the refusal. An enforcement notice was issued in 2012 giving a two-month deadline.
He pleaded guilty at Bradford magistrates’ court in January 2024 for failing to comply with the enforcement notice. He was fined £200 and ordered to pay £800 towards council costs.
The extension was finally demolished this month – just weeks before Mr Azhar falls to be sentenced at Bradford Crown Court on March 7 for again failing to comply
Read More
EXCLUSIVE Man ordered to demolish illegal £8k extension by council after waging 12-year planning war rages ‘my neighbours don’t mind it so what’s the problem?’
His lawyer Jabran Hussain told the court last year: ‘He now understands the only way forward is to comply with the enforcement notice.
‘Within two months this extension will be demolished at great expense. A new application will then be submitted to build something the council will be happy with.’
But the structure remained in place, prompting council officers to prosecute Mr Azhar for a second time. He pleaded guilty before magistrates this month, with his sentencing due to take place at Bradford crown court on March 7.
Mr Azhar confirmed he had been taken back to court but said he believed the council had given him appropriate permissions in 2018.
He claimed that councillors visiting his home told him ‘not to worry’ and reassured him that the work fell under the scope of permitted development.
He then said he heard nothing from the council ‘for years and years’ until being summoned to court, charged with failing to comply with an enforcement notice.
Speaking to MailOnline, Mr Azhar said: ‘I applied for it in 2018, they said I don’t need the permission.
‘Write something about the council, that they’ve done me over.’
His son added: ‘My father built [the extension] with his own money. He didn’t ask for the council to build it. Other people get grants to build downstairs toilets.
Speaking to MailOnline, Mr Azhar’s son – who refused to give his name – said his father had mobility problems and required access to a downstairs toilet
‘He’s had problems with sciatica, so he can’t walk. He built the toilet for himself, just in case in he needed it in the future and he doesn’t have to rely upon the council to give him a grant.’
Mr Azhar previously estimated it would cost £4,000 to tear down the £8,000 rear extension.
Speaking last year he said: ‘There was a garage here and we turned it into a toilet and shower room. It was to help my parents who had to live with us because of their health.
‘They couldn’t get up the stairs to use the toilet and I just wanted to look after them.
‘It’s not like I’ve built a massive extension to benefit me, or to make money out of. It was just to help my family.
‘I didn’t go to the council and beg them for help, I just got on with it and sorted it out myself.
‘I was just trying to do the right thing for my family.’
On Friday, Azhar was fined £3,000 and warned he faces prison if he fails to pay up.
Bradford Crown Court heard that the former builder had shown a ‘complete disregard’ to planning laws dating ‘almost 13 years’
Andrew Stranex, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, said the illegal extension had not yet been fully demolished
Read More
The end of Britain’s biggest man cave: Decade-long planning row is finally over
He said: ‘We’re talking about a 13 year lapse. The chronology involves very significant contact between the council and the defendant to encourage compliance. There were extensions of time given to allow compliance.
‘The fact is that action only appears to have occurred after the beginning of the new proceedings against him and hurriedly so in advance of today’s hearing.’
He added: ‘There have been steps taken to demolish most, but not all, of the building that is subject to these proceedings.
‘The legislation is clear that the order was to demolish and clear all materials. It is still not 100% removed.’
Azhar, defending himself, said he had torn down the wet room despite being ‘in a situation where I need it for myself’. He insisted local councillors had visited his home and voiced no concerns.
He said his son now runs the building business.
Passing sentence, Recorder Dapinder Singh, KC, told Azhar: ‘You must have known the seriousness of this. It’s gone past the magistrates’ court and into the crown court.
‘If this continues any longer the matter can only get more serious for you and you will face a much harsher punishment in these courts.
‘I do accept that there is remorse. Yes, it is late but there is remorse, and you are making significant attempts to try and rectify the position.
‘It’s entirely regrettable it has gone on so long and its taken two court appearances for it to be substantially rectified.’
Ahzar, who said he relies on a monthly £290 disability benefit, was told to pay the £3,000 fine at a rate of £200 a month.
He was told he faces a month in prison if he fails to pay.
Judge Singh told him: ‘Do comply.
‘You don’t want to be back here time and time again. You know how serious these matters are taken. You also know without fail the council will carry on pursuing you unless you do what you are told.
‘If you don’t pay that money you will go to prison for a month. You’ve got to pay. That’s what it boils down to.’
A Bradford Council spokesperson said: ‘We understand the reasons for this extension but there are planning processes in place, to which everyone across the district has to adhere, to ensure that any building work is appropriate.
‘We are happy to support people through the planning application process so they understand the necessary requirements and we will continue to take legal action where necessary to uphold the process and any outcomes from court.’