Appeal 3356531

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a two-storey rear extension at [site address] , [site address] , Calderdale, [postcode] , reference 24/00779/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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: 24 J 16. 02 and 24 J 16. 01.

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site includes a two-storey, stone built, terraced property in Village Street. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and consists mainly of other similar terraced properties with shared gardens to the rear, several of which have been extended or altered. On my site visit, I was able to appreciate that there is a pleasing linear pattern to the position of the front of the buildings when experienced from Village Street. Moreover, there is some design consistency in terms of the use of stone for the walls of the properties, as well as for the front boundary walls. There is less consistency to the pattern of development to the rear of the terraced properties known as [address], some of which include two-storey and single-storey rear projections. Despite the more informal pattern of development to the rear of the terraced dwellings, most of the rear projecting additions are constructed in stone and hence they assimilate well with the host properties and the design of the terrace as a whole. The above attributes add positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed two storey rear extension would be visible from the rear gardens of the properties in Village Street. However, in the context that there are other two-storey projecting additions to other dwelling houses within the terrace, I do not find that the proposed development would look out of place. In fact, and, in this context, the two-storey extension would assimilate well into its immediate surroundings. It would co-exist with similar development.

Given the above, I do not agree with the Council that the proposed development would dominate the rear of the terrace. Although the extension would result in the introduction of a two-storey mass of development, where currently no development exists, it would nonetheless be modest in depth and its roof would mirror the gable roof design of the existing dwelling. Furthermore, and given that the extension would be set down from the ridge height of the appeal dwelling, I consider that it would be subservient in scale. Moreover, it would be built in materials to match those that exist on the existing house and within the wider terrace of properties.

The Council refer to an adverse impact on building lines, but do not provide detailed reasoning in terms of this matter. When the rear of the terrace is considered as a whole, it does not have a common building line. There are single-storey and two-storey rear projections within the terrace of properties. The size and position of the extension would therefore be readily absorbed into the existing dwelling and wider terrace.

The proposal would therefore be acceptable in terms of its design and its impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would not conflict with Policy BT1 of the adopted 2023 Calderdale Local Plan, chapter 12 of the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework, and the guidance set out in Section 3 of the 2024 [name] and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, all of which all seek, amongst other things, to enhance the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings.

I have considered all other objections to the proposal which cite a wide range of concerns including loss of light, outlook and privacy. I do not disagree with the conclusions reached by the Council about these matters at planning application decision stage. In particular, the proposal would not result in a material loss of light or privacy in respect of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties given its position, height and extent. Indeed, it is not disputed that the development would accord with 45-degree line guidance.

I recognise that the extension would change how the outside amenity areas are experienced by users in the locality, but given the modest projection of the proposed extension, I do not find that it would lead to a significant loss of outlook for the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Third parties have raised concerns regarding works being undertaken on the shared boundary. However, this is a civil matter which would have to be separately addressed between the relevant landowners.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the host property, it is necessary to impose a planning condition requiring the use of matching materials.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.