Appeal 3268492

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] of the appeal form details that the description of the development has not changed from that stated on the application form. However, a different description, that detailed in the banner hearing above, has been entered. I have used this description because it more accurately describes the development proposed and has been used by the Council and the appellant in documentation accompanying the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: i. The character and appearance of the area ii. The Living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, [address]; and, iii. Highway safety, with particular regards to carparking

Policy P10 of the [name], Policy BE1 of the Kippax Neighbourhood Plan, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the [name] and HDG1 of the [name] require, amongst other matters, that new development respects the character of the surrounding area and respect the scale, style and detailed design of other buildings in the area.

The appeal property is located within a modern housing estate, made up of a range of properties including detached and semi-detached homes. The appellant describes the properties within the streetscene as being “generally within close proximity to one another”.

At the site visit I saw that while the estate had been laid out to achieve the best use of land, there were nonetheless distinct gaps between the properties, with reasonably sized front gardens and landscaping areas that overall give the area an open character typical of this style of housing development. The appeal property, while previously extended by way of a garage conversion, nonetheless contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst there is no specific policy objection to the principle of residential extensions, I note that the various extensions that comprise the appeal scheme would extend the building considerably. One side extension is situated in a particularly prominent location, adjacent to junction of Park Lane and [address], and as a result of the depth of the extension and resulting extensive roofscape, the extension lacks the architectural subtlety of the host property.

This side extension would result in the loss of some open space and landscaping to the side of the property, including part of an on-street layby style car parking space. Such space and landscaping is characteristic of the area and the erosion that would result from the appeal scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area.

In respect of the first floor extension, despite the clear set back from the front and rear elevations of the appeal property and the lower ridge height, the submitted plans nonetheless show that the extension would, in combination with the other proposed works, diminish the character of the appeal property.

For the reasons detailed above, I find that the extensions would cumulatively create a prominent and incongruous feature in the local area that would be harm the character and appearance of the area and thus contrary to Policy P10 of the [name], Policy BE1 of the Kippax Neighbourhood Plan, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the [name] and the guidance set out in the [name].

The proposed first floor side extension would be located in close proximity to the adjacent bungalow, [address]. The appellant’s Statement of Case refers to the householder [name], detailing that “as a general rule of thumb first floor extensions can project 1m on the common boundary. The proposed extension would only be marginally beyond this”1. However, the submitted plans detail that the proposed extension would project some 4 metres along the boundary and would be situated almost directly on the boundary with No.2.

I saw at the site visit that the previously converted garage is already in close proximity to the facing windows on the bungalow and that the windows face towards the north. Nonetheless, the proposed extension situated at the first-floor level in close proximity to the bungalow, would have a clear dominant and overbearing impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of no.2.

As such the proposal is contrary to Policy P10 of the [name], Policies GP5 and BD5 of the [name] and HDG2 of the [name] in so far as they relate to the protection of the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 1 Paragraph 4.15

The appeal scheme would result in the creation of a garage and in the loss of part of the car parking space adjacent to the property. While the Council refers to this space as “visitor car parking” the appellant details that it is allocated to the appeal property.

Nonetheless, the proposed plans appear to show that, save for the construction of the proposed extension over part of the car parking space, the space would remain unaltered. This would suggest that the space would remain available for use albeit at a reduced size that, based on the evidence before me, would inevitably mean that cars would be parked partially on the highway in close proximity to the junction of Park Lane and [address] to the detriment of highway safety.

The appellant details that the appeal property has plenty of car parking, but no specific details are provided, and I note that no access to the proposed garage is shown on the appeal plans.

To conclude this main issue, as a result of the reduced size of the car parking space that would result in vehicles parking partially on the highway in close proximity to a road junction, I find that the appeal proposal would harm highway safety. As such, the appeal scheme is contrary to policy T2 of the [name], policy BE1 of the Kippax Neighbourhood Plan, saved Policy GP5 of the [name] that amongst other matters seek to protect highway safety.

The appellant details that the loss of landscaping that would result from the appeal scheme could be achieved without planning permission. Furthermore, the appellant has indicated their willingness to provide details of landscaping by way of a condition. Nevertheless, this does not persuade me as to the acceptability of the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.