Appeal 3363933

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of both the existing dwelling and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling, which is situated within a residential estate. The property sits on the corner of [address] and [address] Park. It has a wide side garden, which is enclosed by a low wall with timber fencing above. The dwelling occupies a relatively prominent position in the streetscene.

The existing dwelling has a rather plain and simple appearance, which is a main characteristic of other properties along [address] and [address] Park. This characteristic gives a high degree of uniformity to the streetscene.

The proposal is to construct a side extension with front and rear facing dormers in the roof space. The extension would provide a double garage, laundry, and shower room on the ground floor with a bedroom above. At its closest point, the front corner of the extension would be 1.3m from the side boundary, but the distance would be considerably greater at the rear due to boundary running at an angle away from the building.

The Council contends that the proposal would be an overly dominant and incongruous addition that would detract from the appearance of the host dwelling and the character of the area. The Council states that the proposal would conflict with Policies BT1 and GN4 of the Calderdale Local Plan (LP) and against the advice and principles contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Placemaking and [name] (SPD). It also refers to a conflict with Section 12 of The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (The Framework).

Policy BT1 of the LP seeks to ensure that the design of new development is of a high standard and makes a positive contribution to the area. This accords with Paragraph 135 of The Framework. Policy GN4 concerns the impact of development on its landscape setting. However, given the location of the site within a residential estate, I am not persuaded that Policy GN4 is wholly relevant to the appeal proposal. In reaching my decision, I have also attributed weight to the provisions of the Council’s SPD in relation to the size of extensions and the design and position of dormer structures.

I have considered the appellant’s arguments regarding the merits of the design and appearance of the existing dwelling and the fact that the roof height of the extension would be lower than the height of the roof of the existing dwelling. I have also noted that no objections have been raised by third parties and I accept that the proposal would enhance the living conditions of the occupants.

However, I do not accept the argument that the corner plot location allows for a greater flexibility of design. The corner plot position means that the extension would be more prominent and would impact on the streetscene.

The proposed extension would be both longer and wider than the existing dwelling and it would appear overly dominant, out of scale and at odds with the character and appearance of the existing property. The relatively large dormers would also add to the bulk of the extension and introduce a feature that would appear alien and unduly prominent in the streetscene. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would conflict with the LP and with The Framework, as referred to above. Furthermore, this conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed.