Appeal 6003080

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension of existing bungalow to create accommodation within raised roof, and single-storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/01912/FUL; and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 2024-BD36-14-001 [name]; 2024-BD36-14- 002 [name]; 2024-BD36-14-003 [name]; 2024-BD36-14-081 [name]; 2024-BD36-14-082 [name]; 2024-BD36-14-083 [name]; 2024-BD36-14-084 [name].

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

I observed during my site visit that works have already commenced on the extensions. I am therefore proceeding on the basis that the development has in part, already occurred. The commencement of works does not influence my assessment. I have determined the appeal on its planning merits, based on the evidence provided.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on; • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 34 Beaverdyke, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a detached single-storey dwelling constructed in brick with a tiled roof and a gable to the front elevation. The materials and general form of the building are consistent with others within the cul-de-sac which are mix of single and two-storey properties. The immediately adjacent properties are bungalows, and this lower-scale context is an important component of the character of this part of the street, as are the planted front gardens that contribute to its open, green and spacious appearance.

At the time of my site visit, it was apparent that works have commenced at the property. These works consist of a rear and side extension and appear to have been constructed in accordance with the permitted development scheme submitted to the Council under reference QUERY/25/00214. The rear extension appeared to be complete at the time of my visit. Accordingly, while I have assessed the appeal proposal on its own merits, I have also had regard to this fallback position in reaching my decision.

The appeal scheme would not alter the external plan form of the extensions that have already commenced. The proposed increase in ridge height of the existing dwelling would enable first-floor accommodation to be provided. However, the resulting increase in height would remain proportionate to the plot and the property would still appear to be a bungalow rather than a two-storey house. While the ridge height would exceed that of some of the neighbouring bungalows, the difference would not be so great that it would appear incongruous. As a result, the altered dwelling would integrate comfortably within the established pattern of development and would not appear overly prominent or harmful to the character of the area.

The scheme also proposes rooflights to provide natural light to the first floor. In assessing this element, I have had regard to the realistic fallback position, which could involve the introduction of a dormer window to facilitate similar levels of natural light. When considered in this context, the use of rooflights would result in a simpler roof form avoiding unnecessary bulk. In addition, the appeal development also proposes a hipped roof to the front of the side extension. This would integrate the extension into the main roof when viewed from the street.

The proposal would alter the layout of the front garden and introduce additional parking. Whilst the driveway would be short and parking would be partially in front of the dwelling, this arrangement would not appear out of place in this context, where similar arrangements already exist.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and would be consistent with the overarching aims of Policy D1 and D11 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) which seek to ensure that development responds to immediate architectural context and local character and integrates car parking within the design so as not to dominate the street scene.

The Council Officer’s Report refers to the impact of the appeal proposals on neighbouring properties. In considering this matter, I have had regard to the effect on the wider group of neighbouring occupiers, including those to the rear of the site. Whilst the proposed extensions would be visible from these properties, the extent of the rearward development would be comparable to the permitted development fallback position which has been commenced on site. As such, any effects arising from this element would not materially alter those that could reasonably occur under that fallback scenario.

With respect to the proposed changes to the main ridge line and the introduction of the hipped roof to the front of the dwelling, this would be visible from the rear windows of No. 34 Beaverdyke (No. 34). However, the increased height would be set back from the shared boundary, and although noticeable, the separation distance and roof form would in this case prevent any unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupiers of No. 34. I note that No. [site address] has a side access door to the elevation which faces the appeal properties boundary; however, this opening is set sufficiently away from the shared boundary such that the increase in height would not materially affect it.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, it is therefore in accordance with the overall aims of Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) which among other things seeks to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The fallback position in this case carries significant weight. At my site visit, I observed that the appellant has already commenced construction of the permitted development extension, and they have confirmed an intention to complete the works should the appeal be unsuccessful. The works are sufficiently advanced to indicate that the fallback is both realistic and deliverable. In these circumstances, the permitted development scheme represents a genuine alternative to the appeal proposal and is therefore an important material consideration.

Having considered the scheme that could be constructed under permitted development rights, and which was under construction at the time of my visit, I find that the fallback position would result in materially worse living conditions for the occupiers of No. 34 particularly in relation to overlooking. By contrast, the appeal scheme would result in a more visually pleasing development. These considerations each carry significant weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

I have also had regard to the City of [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which provides guidance on the scale and form of extensions, their massing in relation to the host dwelling, and the spacing and gaps that contribute to the character of the street scene. In this case when compared with the fallback the proposal accords with this guidance, including its expectations for proportion, roof form and the relationship of the extended dwelling to its surroundings.

The Council has referred to the narrowness of the plot and the relationship of the dwelling to its side boundaries. However, the appeal proposal would not alter the overall width of the development when compared with the permitted development scheme already under construction. As the relationship between the building and the plot boundaries would remain materially unchanged, this matter does not affect my overall findings.

The Council also raise concerns regarding the proximity of the building to the plot boundaries and the resulting ability to manoeuvre bins and cycles to the rear of the property. However, the relationship between the dwelling and the boundaries would be the same under both the appeal scheme and the permitted development already constructed, and this therefore limits the weight that can reasonably be given to this matter. During my site visit, I was able to walk between the dwelling and the boundaries on both sides of the property without obstruction. On this basis, I am satisfied that adequate access exists to allow bins and cycles to be stored at the rear of the property.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Given that the development has already commenced, I find that a plans condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of good planning and to provide certainty. I have also attached a matching materials condition which is necessary and reasonable in the interests of character and appearance.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.