Appeal 3334986

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice, as it is a fuller, more accurate description of the development proposal before me than the one provided in the planning application form.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed single storey rear extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and on the living conditions of the neighbours at No.[address], with regard outlook.

No. [site address] (No.64) is a stone built, two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated to the north side of [address] and backing onto open fields. To the side, No.64 has previously been extended over two-storeys and to the rear over single-storey, the full width of the original dwelling.

The guidance at [name] 2 of the [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD) is that extensions should not dominate, or be larger, than the original house and should be in keeping with the existing building in terms of scale, materials and details.

The existing two-storey extension is offset from the principal rear elevation of No.64 and it is proposed to extend from this, projecting around 9.3m. The proposed extension would have a width of around 3.4m essentially filling the corner between the two-storey side and single-storey rear extension, but projecting beyond the latter by around 5.5m. It would have a flat roof, and a centrally located roof lantern, with its eaves terminating just below the eaves of the shallow pitched roof of the existing single-storey rear extension. However, despite this relatively modest height, the significant projection of the proposed extension (even from the existing rear extension), would result in an addition that appears disproportionate to the host dwelling.

The overall depth of the proposed extension (of around 9.3m) would be greater that the depth of the dwelling as originally built and on its own, and in combination with the previous extensions to No.64, it would unduly dominate the rear elevation of the dwelling. This would be in clear conflict with the guidance in [name] 2.

I therefore conclude on the first main issue that the proposed single-storey rear extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. In addition to the conflict with the SPD guidance, it would conflict with Policy LP24 of the Kirklees Local Plan Strategies and Policies (2019) (LP) in so far as it requires extensions to be subservient to the original building, and be in keeping with the existing building in terms of scale. It would further conflict with the principles of good design in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).

The existing two-storey side extension to No.64 extends up to the common boundary with its non-attached neighbour at No.[address] (No.62). The proposed single-storey extension would project around 9.3m along that common boundary, above the height of the existing fenceline. It would, therefore, be clearly visible from No.62.

However, I observed on my site visit that No.62 itself is set well off the common boundary and has vehicular access on its opposite side, with the rear (closest to No.64) currently hardstanding, used for car parking. [name] recognise that this area could be used as amenity space in the future, the plot to the rear of No.62 is generous in both its depth and width. I am not, therefore, persuaded that, although visible, the proposed single-storey extension would appear overbearing or oppressive from the amenity space to the rear, such that it would cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbours at No.62.

Consequently, there would be no conflict with [name] 6, or LP Policy LP24(c) which together require that extensions do not unduly reduce the outlook from a neighbouring property and minimise impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. There would also be no conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

[name] find no harm to the living conditions of the neighbours at No.[address], for the reasons given above, I conclude that there would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The appeal is therefore duly dismissed.