A 'HIDEOUS' balcony extension in Ingleton's conservation area may have to come down after Craven councillors refused planning permission.

Builder John Thistlethwaite agreed the wooden first floor extension at the rear of his High Street home was indeed 'hideous' at Craven District Council's planning meeting, but only because it was unfinished.

He told the committee that he had been told the balcony did not need permission and had stopped construction after getting an enforcement notice from the planning department telling him to take it down.

MORE TOP STORIES:

He added he had put up wooden fence panels as a temporary safety measure, in place of the planned glass screens.

Development control manager Ian Swain acknowledged that Mr Thistlethwaite had contacted the council by email and had received a reply from building regulations saying planning permission was not required, but to expect a further reply from the planning department.

Mr Swain said he could not explain why he had received the reply from building regulations, and apologised, but added it did not give the right to go-ahead and build without the proper consent.

Cllr Ady Green (Ind) agreed failure to get a response from the planning department did not give the right to go-ahead and build and described the balcony as 'absolutely hideous'.

Cllr Chris Harbron (Cons), however, said it was 'quite a mighty fine balcony', but that it was in the wrong place.

Councillors were told Mr Thistlethwaite had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against enforcement action and that it was believed the balcony had replaced a first floor extension.

Planning officer Neville Watson explained there was a big difference between a balcony and a living room extension because of the nature of the intended development.

"How often does any member of this committee stand in their front floor living room window standing, looking out at the neighbour's garden for an hour," he said.

"With a first floor balcony, you are going to go outside to enjoy the outdoors and will be sitting there for a considerable amount of time, and that is why first floor balconies specifically are not included in permitted development."

Councillors agreed to refuse the application because its design, scale, form and construction introduced an 'alien and incongruous' addition to the house. Further, it failed to either preserve or enhance the conservation area and overlooked neighbours, they added.