A HOMEOWNER’S appeal to Scottish Ministers, which claimed his plans for a two-storey extension to his home were originally turned down on "racial and religious grounds", has been refused.

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).

But in a statement to Scottish Ministers, Mr Nazir said the plans to turn the three-bedroom house into a six-bedroom home were so that his family could visit.

And the Scottish Government Reporter revealed that 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 that the “massive and bulky” two-storey extension to the three-bedroom house on 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 it 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 that there were other similar extensions on 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 having recommended it for approval.