A PORCH, described as ‘an abomination’, which was built without approval has been refused retrospective planning permission.

Members of the district council’s planning committee had been asked to determine the porch development to the rear of 2 Ashfield Cottages, in Main Street, High Bentham.

The application had been brought to committee by Councillor Linda Brockbank.

The applicant had retrospective permission for the porch he had built measuring two metres in width, 1.23 metres in depth and three metres at ridge height.

An amended plan was submitted to the planning department which reduced the roof overhang to 10 cms from its current 60 cms and had been recommended for approval by planners.

However the plans did not curry favour with the committee.

Councillor Richard Welch described the porch as ‘awful, ugly, an abomination, a carbuncle and a disgrace’.

“It stands out like a sore thumb,” he said.

He added there was no proof that the applicant had spoken to the planning department and they had said he could go ahead with it.

“It will have an impact on neighbouring buildings, If I lived next door I would be damn fuming.”

The committee also had concerns it had been partially built on a ‘highway’, a right of way at the back of the row of terraced houses.

However, planning manager Neville Watson said this could not be used as a reason for refusal because, despite a development proposed within two metres of a highway required permission, he did not know where that highway started, so did not know if it was encroached.

Other concerns raised included the potential for loss of light to the adjacent property, where the occupier said they now had to keep the light on during the day, and rain and surface water making its way into the neighbour’s home because no drain had been put in, nor were there any rainwater goods on the porch.

Councillor Andy Brown also voiced a concern that it could cause a vehicular obstruction and risked an increase in on-street parking.

Councillors voted unanimously to refuse the application.

They instructed the planning department their reason for refusal was that the proposed development, by virtue of its size and design, constituted an incongruous and inappropriate addition to the host property which would have an overbearing and adverse impact on neighbouring properties.