Appeal 3327539

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed first floor side extension on the character and appearance of the host semi-detached pair and wider streetscene.

No. [site address] (No.70) is a semi-detached dwelling in an [name] design, located on the northern side of [address] opposite its junction with [address]. No.70 has an interesting design, with a central single two-storey bay and a single-storey staggered side projection with flat roof and raised parapet incorporating sections of railings. No.70’s attached neighbour (No.[address]) is not identical, but the pair has some visual symmetry and together they make a positive contribution to the existing street scene.

The existing building line of the two-storey bay is set back behind the principal elevation of the single-storey projection of No.70. It is proposed to continue the building line of this bay, extending to the side at first floor by around 4.5m, the full width of the host dwelling. The proposed extension would project to the rear by around 6m, so utilising most of the existing ground floor footprint, and would follow the height of the existing flat roof (of the two-storey bay).

[name].[address] (No.72) has been extended at first floor, the extension is set well off the principal ground floor elevation, does not extend the full width of the dwelling and is offset from the two-storey bay. Consequently, I found that it appears a subordinate addition that retains the original characteristic [name] design and proportions of its host. In contrast, the combination of its full width and its alignment with the existing two-storey bay (with no offset) means that the proposed first floor extension would dominate No.70, all but consuming the original design. It would result in a bulk and massing that would unbalance the appearance of the principal elevation, and the symmetry and attractive composition of the semi-detached pair. This would be to the detriment of the streetscene, particularly when viewed from the [address], [address] junction where the full elevation of both dwellings is highly visible.

Further, because of the generous spacing between No.70 and its non-attached neighbour (which includes a lane to properties to the rear), the full depth of the proposed extension, which would be around 9.8m, would be visible. Whilst replicating some of the detailing and materials of the host dwelling, and notwithstanding the mixed character of [address], the scale and siting of the first floor extension would appear unduly prominent and conspicuous, particularly when viewed from the east.

I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposals would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host semi-detached pair and to the wider streetscene. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33 (March 2023) and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which together require the design style proposed in new developments to respect or enhance the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings, sympathetic to local character.

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