A homeowner’s bid to make room so his family can visit has been rejected after a neighbour's sun-room was not included in the plans.
Mujahid Nazir’s plans to extend his house in Tranent sparked objections from neighbours and was rejected by East Lothian Councillors after it was claimed it could potentially turn a family home into a house of multiple occupancy (HMO).
READ MORE: Historic East Lothian building sold as businessman ends dream of turning it into flats
But in a statement to Scottish Ministers Mr Nazir says the plans to turn the three-bedroom house into a six bedroom home was so his family could visit.
And the Scottish Government Reporter revealed Mr Nazir had also claimed the application was refused on "racial and religious grounds".
Dismissing his claim of bias as something the Reporter could not comment on, the appeal was refused after the extension was ruled too big.
The Reporter said the "massive and bulky" two-storey extension to the three-bedroom house in Sanderson's Grove, Tranent, would strike "a discordant note" in the street.
He also noted that a neighbour's conservatory had not been included in plans for the extension and further investigation had revealed it would block sunlight from the sun-room for a significant part of the day.
Rejecting the appeal the Reporter said: "The size, form, proportion and scale of the proposed extension would not make it subservient to the existing house, be complementary to its character and appearance, or result in its being well integrated into its surroundings.
"These characteristics would serve to make it appear overly dominant in the street and overbearing to (the neighbouring property), in particular to users of the conservatory in the rear garden. "
Mr Nazir had argued that he wanted to extend his home to allow his family to visit and claimed there were other similar extension in the street.
At a meeting of the council's planning committee last year concerns were raised about the larger house being used as an HMO once work was complete, however Mr Nazir described the claims as “speculations and not facts”.
The committee unanimously voted to refuse planning permission for the extension ruling it was over-development, despite planning officers recommending it for approval.
