Appeal 6003531

The appeal is dismissed.

The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place and I refer to it as “the development” below.

The Council’s decision notice described the development as “two storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension.”

The development relates to an extension. Much of the works carried out relate to a previous permission1 granted on appeal. However, that previous permission required the setting down of the roof of the extension from the host dwelling and the setting back of the first floor of the extension from the front elevation. The development omits the setting back of the first floor and the lowering of the extension of the roof.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling. It is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of pairs of two storey semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind front garden and parking areas.

[address] comprises a cul-de-sac. The appeal property is situated off a turning head at the end of the cul-de-sac. In this location, both the appeal dwelling and its 1 Reference: 19/00024/APPHOU. adjoining neighbour, Number [address] and the pair of dwellings at Numbers 23 and [address], sit further back from the road than their neighbours, as well as being off-set at an angle to the road. This siting affords the appeal dwelling a large and spacious garden to the side and rear.

[address] itself rises considerably in height towards the appeal dwelling. Thus, whilst the appeal dwelling is off-set from the road, the topography of the area results in it appearing prominently in a dominant, high position when seen from elsewhere along [address].

Whilst the dwelling has been extended considerably to the side and rear, it does not appear squeezed onto its plot in any way, due to the spacious surroundings of its garden which provides for plentiful views through to green space beyond.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended and that these changes tend to appear in character with the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Notably, there are examples of dwellings being extended to the side, where the extensions have been designed to be subservient to the host dwelling, through the setting back of front elevations and the lowering of ridge heights.

The development comprises a two storey extension. It has not been set back from the host dwelling’s original elevation at ground or first floor level and the roof of the extension has not been set down from the original main ridge. This results in the creation of a large, wide dwelling that appears at odds with its attached neighbour, which has not been extended to the side. Consequently, the development unbalances the symmetry between the pair of dwellings to a significant degree.

The absence of any setting back of the front elevation at first floor level, combined with the extension’s roof line continuing that of the main ridgeline of the host dwelling, without any lowering in height, results in such considerable massing at first floor and roof level that the original form of the dwelling appears subsumed by the development. In this way, the development appears bulky. It fails to appear subordinate to but rather, it unduly dominates the appearance of the host dwelling.

As a consequence of the above, the development appears obtrusive. This effect is exacerbated by the dwelling’s prominence within its surroundings.

Given all of the above, I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the [name] DPD2; and to the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In support of their case, the appellants refer to other developments in the vicinity. However, none of these developments are the same as that the subject of this appeal and there is nothing before me to demonstrate that all of the circumstances relating to any of those developments are so similar to those relating to the development the subject of this appeal as to provide for direct comparison. 2 Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017).

I acknowledge that the recent development history of the appeal property has led to financial and related strains for the appellants and that the appellants have sought to update their property and provide care for an elderly disabled parent. [name] empathise with the appellants’ situation, these are not factors which either individually or together amount to material factors that outweigh the harm arising from the development.

The appellants refer to the Council’s officer’s reference to an “integrated extension” and state that they would “be grateful if these options could be taken into consideration as part of our application.” I confirm that I have considered this appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

A number of letters of support have been submitted. These stand in favour of the development, but they do not outweigh the significant harm identified.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.