Appeal 3317961

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed double storey side extension to accommodate supplemental living space. Includes new hardstanding to front for additional parking at [site address] , Bradford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/04475/HOU, dated 17 October 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 following approved plans: J22008-01A ([name]), J22008-02 ([name]), J22008-03A ([name]) and J22008-04 ([name]).

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.

Before any part of the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the off-street car parking spaces shown on the approved plan shall be provided and constructed of porous materials, or made to direct run-off water from a hard surface to a permeable or porous area within the curtilage of the site, and laid out with a gradient no steeper than 1 in 15. The development shall be retained as such thereafter.

The main issue is the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling which is located within the middle of a row of three properties. The property is set back from the road with a garden to the front and a driveway to the side which separates this side of the property from No 29. The three properties are not evenly spaced since there is a small gap between the appeal property and No 25 and a notably wider gap to No 29. The frontages of the three properties are also slightly staggered relative to each other. Notwithstanding this, there is a pleasant spacious and well-ordered appearance to this part of the street scene which contributes positively to the character of the area.

The Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that two storey side extensions will normally require a 1 metre set back behind the front wall of a house, with a corresponding lowering of the roofline. In addition, where detached houses are built in a uniform row, the Council will insist that a minimum gap of 1 metre between the extension and the side boundary should be retained to prevent a cramped terracing effect.

The proposed side extension would not achieve a 1 metre gap from the side boundary with No 29. However, the properties are not built in a uniform row due to the slight variation in their building lines and the gaps between them. Taking into account the 1 metre set back, lower roof line, and the hipped roof form, the proposal would appear as a subservient addition to the original building. It would not appear cramped in relation to the site and due to its recessed position would avoid any harmful terracing effect with No 29.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would comply with Policies SC9, DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for Bradford District: Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017, and the SPD. Amongst other things, these policies and guidance seek to ensure that development achieves good design and contributes to the character of the area.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary, I have amended the wording to ensure clarity and precision.

The standard commencement and approved plans conditions are imposed for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to include a condition that the external materials of the extension match the existing building. A condition relating to the provision and drainage of the new parking spaces is necessary in the interests of highway safety and to minimise surface water runoff.

For the above reasons, and subject to the conditions specified, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.