Appeal 3345147

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal dwelling is one half of a two-storey semi-detached pair located on [address], a residential cul-de-sac east of [address]. The property is situated on an irregularly shaped plot, which is relatively narrow at the front where it meets the public highway and at its widest at the rear. There is a driveway and garden to the front and a larger garden to the rear with fields beyond.

[address] is characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings, of which the appeal property is a typical example, which are set back from the road behind low level planting and gardens. Although some have been extended, there remains a sense of uniformity due to the building lines, the generous gaps between them, their bay windows, hipped roofs and consistent materials comprising brick, render and tiled roofs. The cul-de-sac therefore has a well-ordered and spacious appearance. It is within the Shibden Valley Landscape Character Area.

The two storey extension would project from the side and wrap around the rear corner of the dwelling, where it would extend across the full width of the rear elevation and reduce down to single storey. The side extension would be set back from the front of the property and feature an irregular footprint to reflect the tapered plot, with the front elevation being far narrower than the rear. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/A4710/D/24/3345147

The proposal would achieve a degree of subservience to the original building. However, the irregularly shaped footprint of the side extension would result in a contrived and awkward arrangement that would not reflect the rectangular proportions of the property and unnecessarily complicate its appearance. The gabled roof design would also not reflect the existing hipped roof form of the building. As a result, the proposal would not integrate successfully with the host property. It would also significantly reduce the sense of space between it and [address]. The tapered design and gable end of the proposal would be visible from the road and would harm the character of the street scene.

During my site visit I observed a two storey side extension at No 12. It has some similarities to the appeal proposal in terms of its roof form and tapered footprint. However, it has a more significant set back from the front of the property and it also appears to have a lower profile than the appeal proposal. Consequently, it has a more recessive appearance and does not have as great an impact on the street scene as the appeal proposal would. Moreover, given its form and design, the extension at No 12 is not a good example to follow in my view. While the appellants have referred to other extensions approved in the area, those that I was able to see were not identical to the proposal. Accordingly, they do not provide compelling justification for allowing the appeal.

A further concern raised by the Council is that the proposal would unbalance the symmetry of the semi-detached pair. However, as other extensions on the cul-de-sac have unbalanced the semi-detached pairs to varying degrees, the proposal would not have a significantly harmful effect in this regard.

I acknowledge that the proposal has been revised following refusal of the previous application. Nevertheless, I find that the proposal would result in an incongruous addition that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. Thus, it conflicts with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan (2023) which seeks to promote high quality design that respects or enhances the character and appearance of buildings and surroundings. It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks well designed development that is sympathetic to local character. The Council also identify harm to landscape character, but it is unlikely that a development of this scale located on a cul-de-sac would have a significant effect in this regard and it would not encroach upon the countryside. I have not, therefore, identified an overriding conflict with the landscape character aims of Local Plan Policy GN4.

[name] sympathise with the appellants’ wish to create enlarged accommodation, this is a private benefit which does not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this finding. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal should be dismissed.