Rishton landlord allowed to stay in ‘too big’ house

The owner of a luxury four-story home with four bedrooms, a swimming pool, a sub-floor and exterior balconies was allowed to retain the much larger home he had built in contravention of the original planning approval.

Stavros Vanavas was granted planning permission for the original property in Maplre Crescent, Rishton in November 2020.

But the actual house he built was much larger.

Hyndburn Council’s planning committee on Wednesday granted past-dated planning permission for the final version, despite neighbors’ objections and councilors’ past suspicions and approval of a building that ignored the law.

The committee could have rejected Mr Vanavas’ application and ordered him to demolish and rebuild the house if he had the November 2020 permit.

Its chairman, Cllr Judith Addison, has expressed concern over the approval of a house built in violation of the original permit, repeated by other committee members Cllrs Melissa Fisher, Susan Hayes, and Bernard Dawson.

Planning manager Simon Prideaux warned that Mr. Vanavas would almost certainly appeal if permission was denied.

Cllr Hayes, “If we approve of this, what kind of message are we sending?” Said.

Cllr Fisher described the house as being built ‘huge and overbearing’.

“I don’t like retroactive permissions, but we have to be realistic,” said Cllr Dawson.

Mr. Prideaux told the committee: “The house has been built but does not conform to the approved plans. It is considerably larger.

“The main changes are the increase in height of 1,149 meters, the increase in width from 6m to 9.8m, and changes in the height of the porch and window arrangements.”

He explained that he received two appeal letters, which included: development completed without planning permission; the scale of the property does not match the other properties at the closing; the property has four floors and overlooks all properties on Maple Crescent; residents cannot sit unattended in parts of their gardens; and people want to move because of the impact this development has on views.

“Given the previous planning permission, it is considered that the damage from the development was not sufficient to render the development unacceptable and justify the denial of planning permission,” Prideaux said. said.

Leave a Reply