Appeal 3272600

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording, matching that used on the Decision Notice has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. However, as both parties have used this description in their submissions, and it is a much clearer description of the development proposed, I have used it in my heading above but have removed the narrative element.

Parties agree that the appeal development has already taken place. Although there appear to be some differences between the development on site, and that shown on the drawings, this does not alter my conclusions on the main issues.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on i) the character and appearance of the area, and ii) the living conditions of occupiers of the host property with specific regard to their outlook, overshadowing and loss of light.

The appeal site is an end terrace house, set above the level of the road, which is itself on a hill. As a result, the site is more visible than might otherwise be the case, particularly in views up [address]. Along the road, there is a mixture of house types, materials and alterations. There are also various boundary treatments, approaches to the changing levels and parked vehicles, all of which play a role in the character and appearance of the street. Despite this variety, there is however a strong and consistent building line along the frontages and there are no other comparable examples of such outbuildings, with a similar relationship to the host property, the street or similar visibility from the street.

The appeal development being timber and set to the front of the host property is prominent in the street-scene, and as a result of the visibility of the site noted above, strikingly different to, and as a result, incongruous within the street-scene. As a result, I find that the proposal is harmful to the established character and appearance of the area, and in particular, the strong, established building line. It is therefore contrary to Policies DS1, DS3 and S9 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District Core Strategy Development Plan Document (the Local Plan). These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development achieves good design, appropriate to the character, appearance of its context.

The outbuilding is extremely close to the front elevation of the host property. I note that the drawings and appeal submission propose moving the building away from the windows, but even at the distance proposed, the outbuilding would have a significant effect on the outlook from the ground floor windows of the host property. The appeal development would also clearly overshadow those windows and the rooms they serve, as well as reducing significantly the light they receive.

I do of course accept that these harms to living conditions are, in effect, self-inflicted. However, I do not find this to be a material consideration of such weight to disapply the policies in the development plan which seek to protect living conditions. I also note the personal condition suggested by the appellant, but given my findings on character and appearance, do not consider it to be appropriate in this case.

As a result, I find that the appeal development causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of the host property with specific regard to their outlook, overshadowing and loss of light, contrary to Policy DS5 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect amenity.

Like the Council, I have some sympathy with the appellants desire for secure storage. However, on the face of the evidence before me, do not consider that this outweighs the need to protect the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of occupiers of the appeal site.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal development conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.