A property developer has been criticised by a court after providing paperwork only at the eleventh hour, resulting in a trial being delayed by three months.

Wasaf Hussain was due to face trial over claims that he did not adhere to planning conditions for a housing scheme in Crossflatts.

When the trial date was fixed, Hussain was told he had to provide his evidence and arguments to Bradford Council by the end of February.

Yet when proceedings were due to start on Friday, it emerged he had not sent this paperwork until just after 4pm on Thursday, merely 18 hours before the case was due to commence.

The late submission means the matter will now be heard on July 10.

Hussain, who is 38 and lives in Malvern Crescent, Riddlesden, is charged with breaching a planning enforcement notice.

Plans to transform outbuildings on land next to Ryshworth Hall and Crossflatts Cricket Club, situated off Keighley Road, into homes were granted permission in 2020.

The planning consent included several obligations, among them the need for a new turning space to be built, surfaced, sealed and drained before residents moved into the properties.

Other stipulations involved creating visibility splays and establishing a suitably designed vehicle entrance.

Bradford Council asserts these works have not been performed and served an enforcement notice requiring completion by May 2024.

When Hussain attended court in January, he entered a not guilty plea to breaching the notice.

At Friday’s hearing, Waseem Raja, representing Bradford Council as prosecutor, commented that the defendant’s behaviour throughout this affair had been unsatisfactory.

The case should never have reached trial. He ought to acknowledge his wrongdoing.

This issue traces back roughly five years.

He has been given sufficient time to comply with the notice.

At the earlier hearing in late January, he was allowed 28 days to supply any evidence to the prosecution to facilitate trial preparation.

He filed it at 4:10pm the day before, an email accompanied by 11 extensive attachments.

Raja observed that examining such substantial paperwork within the brief period between submission and the start of the trial would be impossible.

An adjournment was the sole practical solution.

Three council witnesses had arrived at court, having taken time away from their regular duties.

Raja remarked that the defendant had delivered everything at the last possible moment.

Hussain indicated he could only apologise, having struggled to obtain legal representation. The charges for a planning solicitor were prohibitively expensive.

He stated he had mistakenly assumed his prepared documentation would be sufficient.

The magistrates described the situation as most unsatisfactory and consented to defer the trial, though they made clear to Hussain that it would go ahead on July 10 irrespective of his level of readiness.