Appeal 3301021

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant indicates that some ‘concessions’ could be made in respect of achieving greater separation to the boundary and changes to rear windows, but no related drawings have been provided. In any event, it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought. Consequently, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the drawings before me.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: i) the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and ii) the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with particular regard to enclosure, outlook, and privacy.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling located in a prominent position at the corner of [address] and [address]. It is a simple gable-ended building with a flat-roofed rear extension and a canopy roof over the front and side ground floor bay windows.

The surrounding area contains a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying ages, styles, and forms. This includes a modern bungalow ([address]) that has been recently constructed within the former rear garden of the appeal property. The minimal space that has been left between the appeal property and its rear boundary has resulted in the appeal property appearing uncomfortably squeezed into the corner of its plot. This is noticeably out of character with the surrounding area, even accounting for some variation in plot sizes and spacing.

The proposals would exacerbate this cramped appearance by adding substantial bulk at the rear. Whilst the appellant points to the greater height and depth of the neighbouring dwelling [address], this would not mitigate the cramped appearance of the appeal property in relation to its own plot.

In terms of design, the rear extensions would jut out beyond the side elevation towards [address] in a dominant and obtrusive manner, while the hipped roof design would be at odds with the gable-ended design of the main dwelling. In addition, the rear elevation would contain an odd arrangement of a narrow band of high level windows at ground floor, and first floor windows that are all obscurely glazed. This attempt to mitigate a loss of privacy to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties would appear highly contrived and is out of keeping with the fenestration design of the existing dwelling. The large opening doors to the master bedroom would add further to the awkward mismatch of fenestration in the dwelling.

Overall, the result would be a scale and design of development which does not integrate sensitively with the host building and its immediate surroundings, notwithstanding the variety of built form in the wider area.

My attention has been drawn to other developments in the area, but I am not aware of the circumstances behind them, and in any event, they are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme so have limited bearing on my consideration of the merits of this appeal.

I therefore conclude that the development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. This is contrary to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017 (the CS), and Policy BW1 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018, which among other things, require that new development is well designed and should make a positive contribution to the character of the area in which it is situated. It is also contrary to the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (the SPD), which seeks well-designed, subordinate extensions that are sympathetic to the original house, including in respect of roof and fenestration design.

The proposals would bring two-storey development closer to the boundary with [address], which has a limited amount of garden space at the side and front of the house. Even if the main garden space is at the front, the development would have an imposing presence from within the side garden and parking area, which in combination with the presence of [address], would result in an undue sense of enclosure in those areas. Given the limited garden space at the property, this undue sense of enclosure would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants. The lack of objection from the prospective occupants is not justification for harmful development, and I am mindful that occupants can change.

Furthermore, although not featuring in the Council’s reasons for refusal, I am still required to take into account the concerns from the neighbouring occupants of [address] and [address].

[address] has a large kitchen/diner window in the side elevation facing the appeal property. Although this room joins into the rear conservatory, it would appear that this window is the only direct source of outlook from the room and is therefore important. As this outlook is already partly compromised by the height and proximity of the boundary hedge, views of the sky above it are likely to be particularly valued. The two-storey rear extension would cause a noticeable reduction in the amount of sky viewed from this window. Given the kitchen/diner is a frequently used room, this effect on outlook would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of that property.

[address] is located across the road from the appeal property and has its main private garden area at the side. Whilst the proposal complies with the window-to-window separation distances of the SPD, the projection towards [address] would bring first floor openings closer to this neighbour’s garden. These would be particularly large with the ability to be fully opened in balcony-type fashion, and would likely offer closer and more intrusive views over the boundary fence into the neighbour’s garden. The resultant reduction in privacy would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of that property.

I therefore conclude that the development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants of 63 and [address], and [address], with particular regard to enclosure, outlook, and privacy. This is contrary to Policy DS5 of the CS, and the SPD, where they seek to protect the living conditions of existing or prospective residents.

The appellant has highlighted a number of ways in which the proposals would improve the accommodation and internal layout of the existing house. Nonetheless, this does not outweigh the harm that would be caused and the resultant conflict with the policies of the development plan as a whole.

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