Appeal 3314800

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a proposed hip to gable wall with rear dormer windows at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/04773/HOU, dated 4 November 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans [name] 1 and 2 dated 23 September 2022.

With the exception of the external walls to be rendered, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surrounding context, with particular regard to scale, form and materials.

The brick and rendered, hipped roof 2 storey semi-detached dwellings making up [address] and its neighbouring streets provide a relatively consistently spaced, mature suburban street and are the key components which define the character and appearance of this residential part of Bradford.

The appeal property is one of 2 semi-detached dwellings occupying what are more generous corner plots, on either side of the junction between [address] and [address]. Each of these 2 dwellings has been the subject of significant side and rear extensions. Nonetheless, unlike No 2, the appeal property currently continues to reflect the hipped roof form and 2 storey scale of its partner, No [address] and other dwellings in that cul-de-sac and the neighbouring streets, including [address].

The front elevation of the appeal property is immediately visible from within [address], where it is read with its semi-detached partner and remaining properties in that cul-de-sac. Its corner positioning means that the appeal dwelling’s existing front, side and rear elevations in their extended form are visible in the street view from short distance vantage points when travelling in either direction along [address] and from the public footway between Nos 30 and [address].

Within those views, the appeal property is read with the existing substantial flat roofed dormer extensions to No [address] and No [address] and also the existing substantially extended facing property, No [address].

The host’s previous extensions are broadly consistent with the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (“the SPD”). I recognise that the appeal scheme, when viewed in isolation, deviates from that design guidance in respect to the proposed alterations to the roof forms of the existing side and rear extensions, the original roof form and the proposed rear dormer extensions.

The appellant has drawn my attention to dormer extensions in the vicinity of his property and to the alterations to No 2 opposite. From my site inspection, I observed that flat roofed dormer extensions of similar proportions and positioning to those proposed here are not alien in [address], [address] or the surrounding streets. They have become an integral part of the street scene within which the appeal property is experienced. I have also observed that the appeal proposal reflects the raised eaves and gable end roof form of No 2.

The proposed rendered finish to all external walls which is specified on the submitted plans will ensure a cohesive finish to the property. Although this will differ to the external finish of adjoining No 3, such a contrast is not dissimilar to the treatment of other properties elsewhere in this particular neighbourhood. Similarly, the proposed tile hanging to the dormer extensions can be controlled by a suitably worded planning condition to ensure consistency with the main roof covering and other dormer extensions in the area.

The resulting shallow rear roof profile is somewhat contrived and is not a feature prevalent in this particular street scene. However, that is an insubstantial element of the overall scheme which does not dominate its host and would not be prominent in the view.

The original character and appearance of the entrance to [address] has already been substantially changed by the alterations that have taken place to the host dwelling and elsewhere in its immediate built context. Crucially, the introduction of a form and scale of development similar to that of No 2 at this specific location will reclaim a significant degree of visual consistency and balance within this specific part of the street scene. This weighs heavily in favour of the appeal proposal.

Furthermore, despite its departure from the guiding principles set out in the Council’s SPD, this particular appeal scheme would reflect existing built characteristics which are sufficiently concentrated in the vicinity of the appeal site to lead me to find that the appeal proposal would have a neutral impact on the prevailing character of this area.

For these reasons, in its totality the appeal proposal would not be an unduly strident or disruptive feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of its context, with particular regard to scale, form and materials.

In seeking to achieve good design and high-quality places, Policy DS1 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District Core Strategy Development Plan Document states, amongst other things, that development proposals should be informed by a good understanding of the site, area and context. In ensuring that new developments respond to urban character, Policy DS3 of that Plan states, amongst other things, that proposals should be appropriate to their context in terms of scale, details and materials.

In view of my findings, there is no conflict with either of these policies or with the development plan when taken as a whole.

The Council’s suggested conditions meet the tests set out in paragraph 56 of the Framework. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also attached a condition requiring, with the exception of the proposed areas to be rendered, the use of matching materials in the interests of attaining an acceptable appearance.

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