A businessman has been ordered to tear down an ambitious extension to his home after council bosses condemned its ‘poor design’ and ruled it caused ‘significant harm’ to neighbours.
Kantilal Khimani, 52, sparked complaints from residents in the area after building a third floor extension to the rear of his smart detached home in Bolton, Greater Manchester.
Mr Khimani, a former governor at Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Trust, commissioned the work without planning permission. He later applied for permission retrospectively, which is common practice, but this was refused.
Furious neighbours say it feels like work has been going on for ‘years’ and when MailOnline visited the property, the front garden was littered with loose paving slabs, wooden pallets, a mop and other debris.
Mr Khimani has now been ordered to tear down the extension after Bolton Council ruled ‘it caused significant harm’ to neighbours.
Council bosses gave ‘great weight’ to the fact the extension was built for a relative with ‘learning and physical difficulties’ but concluded that it did not justify the ‘poor design’.
Now a neighbour has told MailOnline how the planning decision came as a ‘relief to him.’
The local man, who invited the Mail into this garden to inspect Mr Khimani’s extension, said: ‘It’s like a block of flats and does not fit in with the character of the area. But I think it impacted my neighbours more than me.’
Kantilal Khimani’s extension (pictured) has been slammed by neighbours and compared to a ‘tower block’
When MailOnline visited the property, the front garden was littered with loose paving slabs, wooden pallets, a mop and other debris
Kantilal Khimani, 52, sparked complaints from residents in the area after building a third floor extension to the rear of his smart detached home in Bolton, Greater Manchester
Mr Khimani has now been ordered to tear down the extension (left) after Bolton Council ruled ‘it caused significant harm’ to neighbours
The neighbour said it seemed like the building work had ‘been going on for years.’ He said: ‘Yes it went on for a bit with lots of noise and dust. I think it was more of a concern for the immediate neighbours than me.
‘But I am relieved it’s got to come down. Another of our neighbours has put up an extension which is not in keeping with the area. It overlooks my garden and I am not happy. There is too much of this sort of thing and I just worry when the time comes for me to sell up.’
The neighbour said that although Mr Khimani owned the house he did not live there. Other locals suggested that the house was empty.
Mr Khimani is managing director of Shanti Medi-Care Ltd, which runs a pharmacy in the Bolton area.
Some neighbours were opposed to the plans at the time, submitting letters of objection to the council.
The letters raised issues around privacy, loss of light and the fact the new property overlooked their gardens.
In August last year the local authority rejected the application, on the grounds that proposed extension would, by virtue of its design, height and siting be detrimental to the character and appearance to the area.
Mr Khimani appealed this decision, taking the case to the Planning Inspectorate.
Neighbours have said they are relieved that Mr Khimani has been ordered to tear down the extension (pictured) in Bolton
Neighbours say that it looks like a block of flats and is not in keeping with the area and other homes
Mr Khimani has now been ordered by Bolton Council to tear down the extension (left) after ‘finding that it caused significant harm’ to neighbours
An aerial view shows the flat roof on Mr Khimani’s house as well as the debris in the front and back garden
However the public body rejected the appeal, meaning the extension will now have to come down.
The inspector concluded: ‘I understand that the extension was required for a relative who has learning and physical difficulties.
‘However, although I give this largely personal matter great weight it is insufficient to justify the poor design of the extension or to outweigh the very real harm that has been caused to the streetscene and the character of the area due to this scheme.’
The inspector’s report read: ‘For whatever reason alterations were made to this house without the benefit of planning permission and as such certain unauthorised changes were carried out to the property. These largely consisted of the erection of a flat roof extension to the top floor of the building in order to substantially increase rooms within the roof space.
‘This has in effect created a full height extension to the rear of the house.
Neighbours raised issues around privacy, loss of light and the fact the new property overlooked their gardens
A neighbour said it seemed like the building work had ‘been going on for years’
‘Unfortunately, presumably due to the required head height levels involved, this has resulted in an awkward encroachment over the front right hand roof slope which has resulted in a vertical upstand at the top of what was the existing ridge line. As a result the extension is visible not only from the rear and sides but also from the front.
‘Although there is some variation within the area, the vast majority of houses here abide by a similar architectural approach. Despite the rear extension being carried out in a good match of brick to the original house it does not abide by the requirements of the SPD and does significantly alter the character of the existing house.
‘Nowhere is this alteration more harmful however than through the awkward and poor design detail where the roof of the extension is visible above the existing ridgeline and from the streetscene view of the gable elevation.
‘Despite some trees offering some seasonal visual shielding of this elevation, such a detail is harmful and ill conceived and it causes significant harm to the more subtle architectural details that predominate in the area.
‘When added to the mass and expanse of the rear elevation, which has, in effect created a new second floor flat roof extension, the harm is even greater.
‘Although I accept that the effects upon neighbours through overlooking would not be noticeably worse than that of the previous situation, the increase in massing and dominance of this extension could cause greater harm.’
MailOnline approached Mr Khimani for comment.
