Appeal 3359571

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a two-storey front extension with hip to gable roof on the existing dwelling at [site address] , Brighouse, Calderdale, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00894/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 24/045/08; 24/045/05a; 24/045/02a

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area around [address].

No 17 is a stone-built house situated towards the northern end of [address], which is a narrow lane leading off [address]. The appeal property is attached to No [address], which is a wide-fronted house, and it would appear that both houses may have been created by amalgamation of earlier smaller dwellings. [name] 17 and [address] at the rear of properties to the south, which turns to the east and then back to the north around No 17. For this reason only a small part of the side elevation is visible from the public realm along [address] and the property has something of the nature of a corner plot.

Nos 17 and 21 would appear have very little in the way of rear amenity space, but they have large garden areas to the front. In the case of No 17, the space lies across the access lane which effectively ends at the gate of No 21 beyond. Nos 17 and 21 are isolated from the main terrace of houses along [address] by reason of the acute turns in the access lane between Nos 15 and 17.

The appeal property has a front porch and single-storey front extension attached to the front elevation, both of which have mono-pitch roofs. The front extension projects almost to the access lane at the front, while the porch is set a little further back. The proposed development would involve the demolition of both the porch and front extension, and the construction in their place of a part two-storey and part single-storey extension across the whole of the front of the house and projecting a little over 3 metres from the front elevation. It would also involve a hip to gable conversion to the side elevation.

Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan (LP) indicates that the design style proposed in new developments should respect or enhance the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings, taking account of its local context and distinctiveness. The aesthetics includes a range of factors including height, massing, scale, form, siting and materials.

The Council’s Placemaking and [name] (SPD) contains guidance on a number of design matters. In particular. It notes that proposals should reflect and respond to the prevailing building line and set-back unless there are strong urban design reasons for departing from this alignment (e.g. focal buildings at key corners). In addition, all buildings located on corners must be designed to positively address both sides of the corner. With regard to extensions, the SPD indicates that a building extension must be proportionate to the size and form of the original building and subservient to it; that extensions should not extend beyond the established front building line; that extensions should not compromise enjoyment of neighbouring buildings; that extensions should not result in overdevelopment of the plot; and that the form and detailing of an extension should reflect the existing building and mirror its architectural properties, particularly where these are strongly characteristic of the local area.

In this case, the Council considers that the introduction of new windows of sympathetic design, including a small new window in the existing side elevation of the house, would be acceptable in design terms, and I concur with that view. In addition, the Council notes that the two-storey element of the front extension would be set away from the boundary with No 21 and that it would not cause undue harm to light or outlook. Again, I concur with this perspective. The hip-to-gable alteration would bring the appearance of the appeal property into line with the rest of the properties on [address]. In these respects, I consider that the proposal would represent good design, and would conform with Policy BT1 of the LP and with guidance in the SPD.

With regard to the scale and appearance of the proposal, Nos 17 and 21 are in an unusual situation, both in terms of location and the nature of their immediate surroundings. By reason of the right-angled bends in the access lane, both properties are set-back from the building line of the main terrace along [address]. In addition, neither has an effective rear garden area, such that it would not appear possible to construct a rear extension at the property. By way of contrast, both houses have significant areas of land at the front of the property, albeit the land at No [address] which effectively ends at the gate to No 21. The only opportunity for No 17 to extend is, therefore, at the front between the main house and the access lane.

[name] 17 is effectively a semi-detached house, there is no significant building line to follow. The house already has a front porch and single-storey front extension to break the building line. These appear as separate, unrelated elements. Whilst the proposed extension would be partly two-storey, and therefore bulkier, it would appear as a more coherent part of the dwelling whilst remaining subservient to it. Nos 17 and 21 are separated from the rest of the properties on [address], which largely retain a building line that is clearly visible from [address]. The appeal property and No 21 are not visible from any part of [address] and have something of a standalone nature and character. On this basis, I consider that the proposal would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the area around [address].

The occupiers of No 21 have expressed concern about potential disruption to access by way of the use of scaffolding in the construction of the proposed extension. I sympathise with this view, but it would appear possible to carry out the necessary works without blocking the access lane. Mention has also been made of the possible presence of bats in the area. The submitted plans indicate that an approved bat box and also a swift box would be included within the property as part of the construction of the extension and the hip-to-gable alterations.

I find that the proposed extension would represent a coherent and subservient element of the host property, and that it would not conflict with Policy BT1 of the LP or with guidance on design in the SPD. Accordingly, I allow the appeal subject to the conditions added above.

I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to materials in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.