Appeal 6003702

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook and daylight.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set back from a corner of [address] behind a driveway and garden area. It has a detached single storey garage, which runs alongside the dwelling’s boundary with Number [address].

It is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of pairs of semi-detached dwellings a number of which, like the appeal dwelling, have large gable roofs extending to the ground floor, affording them the appearance of dormer bungalows.

Other pairs of dwellings in the locality are two stories in height with gable roofs. Similarities in the design of dwellings and the use of a common palette of materials results in an attractive sense of uniformity. Further, the setting back of dwellings from the road and the presence of front garden areas provides the area with green and spacious characteristics.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings have been altered and/or extended and that in general, such changes appear in keeping with host dwellings and the surrounding area.

The appeal dwelling has a two-storey side extension with a flat roof. It is proposed to demolish this existing extension, along with the detached single storey garage and an existing conservatory to the rear of the dwelling. A substantially larger, wedge-shaped two storey extension is proposed. This extension would widen to the rear, where it would adjoin a proposed ground floor rear extension, thus projecting into the rear garden across the full width of the dwelling.

The width and wedge-shape of the proposed two storey element of the extension would result in it reaching towards and extending along the shared boundary with No 26. The proposed two-storey extension would have a shallow-pitched roof.

I find that the proposed shallow-pitched roof would appear incongruous and awkward against the much more steeply pitched roof of the host dwelling. The harmful visual effect of this would be exacerbated by the overall large scale and the unusual wedge-shape of the proposal, such that it would draw the eye as an alien form of development out of keeping with its surroundings and particularly noticeable as one travels along [address] in a southerly direction.

Further to the above, I find that the proposal would, due to its scale, form and siting, appear as an unduly dominant and bulky feature, out of proportion with the host dwelling.

I also find that the proposal would effectively result in the creation of a large, blank and very tall wall along the shared boundary with No 26. Consequently, as well as comprising an incongruous extension unlike any other in the vicinity, the proposed development would appear in stark contrast to and jar with the much lower existing side extension to No 26.

Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan (2023); and to the Council’s Placemaking and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2024), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

As above, the proposed extension would rise to two stories in height immediately alongside the shared boundary with No 26. The height of the proposal means that it would tower above No 26’s more modest side extension. Further, the proposed extension’s height and its siting adjacent to No 26 would result in it being acutely noticeable from side windows serving the ground floor of No 26, as well as from No 26’s private outside space between the dwelling and its shared boundary with the appeal property.

I find that the combination of its height, projection and immediate proximity would result in the proposed development unduly dominating the outlook from No 26. Further, the harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the side extension appearing as a tall blank edifice. This would emphasise its scale and proximity such that the proposal would appear to “loom” over No 26 to an overbearing degree.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy BT2 of the Calderdale Local Plan; and to the Council’s Placemaking and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

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 the development the subject of this appeal as to provide for direct comparison.

Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the development would result in significant harm and hence the conclusion below.

I note that the proposal would involve the demolition of various existing built elements, including what is a relatively unsightly side extension. However, as set out above, the proposed development that would replace these features would result in significant harm.

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