A pensioner who ballooned to 30 stone after a serious illness says NHS red tape is condemning him to a life in a wheelchair.

Former Canterbury building society boss Ian Sandford is furious the health service is refusing to fund an operation to remove an “apron of fat” which hangs from his waist.

The 67-year-old from Broomfield believes that by failing to operate now the NHS will end up more out of pocket in the long run as his condition worsens and he requires more medical treatment.

But health bosses claim they are hamstrung by legal and budgetary restraints relating to such procedures and have suggested that Ian tries other weight loss programmes.

“Their position means that I am effectively being condemned to a miserable existence in which I can only walk a few steps at a time and have to use a wheelchair,” Mr Sandford said.

“I have no choice but to endure spending the majority of my waking hours stuck behind an ageing laptop or watching television. That’s no life for anyone.”

Mr Sandford says the operation to remove the fat will cost £2,974, while a special chair he was given which lifts him to his feet costs £4,500.

“That money was wasted,” he said. “The chair was totally unfit for purpose as I couldn’t get my arms over it and yet the cost of it would almost have funded the operation I require twice over.

“Instead of this operation, we are talking about massive sums of money in the future.

“But in this case, even if it was cosmetic, which it emphatically is not, it would be a totally false economy. It’s merely stacking up a massive drain on NHS funds for the future.

“To say that the NHS powers-that-be are being shortsighted would be an understatement. I am at my wits’ end to know where to turn next.”

Mr Sandford, who is 6ft, was about 16 stone and physically active in his younger days. He managed the National and Provincial Building Society in Burgate, working there between 1979 and 1988.

After a minor stroke he was diagnosed with a rare type of tumour and underwent an operation in 1990 to have it removed.

But it slowed his metabolism, meaning that he began to pile on weight. He says abdominoplasty surgery to remove the fat would both improve his mobility and increase his metabolic rate.

"I am, through no fault of my own, being condemned by NHS red tape to spend the rest of my life in misery as an invalid" - Ian Sandford

Mr Sandford insists that his weight has nothing to do with over-eating, adding he is left relying on wife Sue, 67, to help him through life.

He said: “I eat modestly. It’s nothing like you see on those TV shows about obesity where people eat vast amounts of food and end up needing bariatric surgery.

“But it means that my wife can hardly push the wheelchair because I have become so heavy. I have already had to have expensive equipment to help me cope and as we both get older I will have to have carers in to assist.

“I want to get back to an active life and the doctors believe I could if this operation went ahead.

“Instead though, I am, through no fault of my own, being condemned by NHS red tape to spend the rest of my life in misery as an invalid.”

Mr Sandford added his GP at the Broomfield Surgery and Herne Bay MP Sir Roger Gale are fighting on his behalf for treatment.

The Canterbury and Coastal Clinical Commissioning Group says it is sympathetic to Ian Sandford’s plight and recognises that the fat apron affects all aspects of his life.

In such cases it admits it has to make “difficult decisions” about paying for medical procedures and states that the surgery needed by Ian “is not routinely funded across Kent and Medway”.

Simon Perks, accountable officer for the CCG, said: “There is a set amount of money available to spend on healthcare, therefore we – like all CCGs – have to make difficult decisions about which treatments are routinely provided.

“Generally treatments are not available if there is insufficient evidence about the clinical benefit they offer. The request therefore needs to be reviewed by a panel, comprised of GPs and consultants, who examine the clinical evidence.

“This panel has reviewed Mr Sandford’s case on two occasions and unfortunately has not seen evidence of clinical exceptionality. The process they followed was reviewed and upheld by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.”

Mr Perks added that CCG legal guidance in Mr Sandford’s case advised that it should not make clinical decisions based on unknown future costs of treatment.

He went on: “It may appear that funding the requested treatment would be more cost-effective to the NHS than continuing to provide the care that Mr Sandford currently receives through the NHS.

"Evaluating this is extremely complex and would result in many uncertainties, since the risk of complication and the cost of further treatment would also need to be considered.

“The CCG genuinely sympathises with Mr Sandford’s condition, and we are happy to meet him in person to discuss the reasons behind our decision.

“If Mr Sandford’s clinicians feel they have any new information which would demonstrate exceptionality, then a further application can be made to the panel.

"Alternatively, there are other procedures available on the weight management programme, and we would encourage Mr Sandford to discuss these with his GP.”