Appeal 6003883

The appeal is dismissed.

There is no dispute between the parties about the acceptability of the design and detailing of the proposed front extensions and the conversion of the internal garage into a habitable space. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that these aspects of the appeal proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I have not been made aware that these elements would result in any conflict with any development plan policies.

In light of the above, the main issues are; • the effect of the proposed detached garage on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the two-storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 20 and [address], with particular regard to sunlight.

The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling constructed in brick with a tiled roof. The materials and general form of the building are consistent with other properties served by the shared private drives; these are two storey properties with either detached garages adjacent [address] or integral garages. The appeal dwelling is positioned at the end of the private drive and is set back from the highway; it benefits from a large front garden. The spaciousness of the plots is a defining feature of this part of the street, and the planted front gardens play a role in maintaining its open, green and attractive character. These open areas are, however, periodically broken up by garages located along the main road frontage.

The appeal development seeks to introduce a detached garage to the front of the existing property, within the front garden. [name] acknowledge that the proposed structure would be of a scale and form comparable to others within the street scene, the submitted plans fail to clearly demonstrate the orientation of the garage or the nature of the associated parking and vehicle manoeuvring arrangements. As a result, it has not been possible to adequately assess how the development would relate to the established pattern of garage development within the street or whether it would integrate satisfactorily within the existing layout.

The existing garages positioned forward of the main building line appear to form part of the original and cohesive design of the estate with allocated parking to the front. In the absence of sufficiently detailed information, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed garage would reflect this established arrangement or preserve the character and appearance of the street scene.

I acknowledge that the proposed materials would be consistent with those used on other garages along the frontage of [address], and that the appellant has suggested that a landscape scheme could be conditioned. Whilst this may offer a degree of screening and reflect the setting of the other frontage garages, planting could not be controlled, and its retention could not be relied upon to permanently mitigate or screen the visual impact of an otherwise unacceptable form of built development. Consequently, limited weight can be afforded to the proposed landscaping in assessing the effect of the garage on the character and appearance of the street scene.

I have had regard to the [address] Extension and [name] (2012) (SPD), which advises that garages should not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. No specific harm to neighbouring amenity has been identified; however, the uncertainty arising from the lack of a detailed layout prevents a clear conclusion from being reached in relation to its effect on character and appearance.

In light of the above, I am not satisfied it has been demonstrated that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the appeal site and the wider area. The proposal therefore conflicts with the relevant requirements of Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan (2025), which seeks, among other things, to ensure that development is of high quality, protects the amenity of current and neighbouring occupiers and positively contributes to its setting.

The proposed two-storey extension would project approximately 2.5 metres from the rear of the existing dwelling. The SPD advises that two-storey extensions to detached dwellings may be acceptable where they comply with the 45-degree guideline, and further notes that extensions positioned to the north of neighbouring properties are likely to have a limited impact on direct sunlight. Although the appellant has not submitted specific technical evidence in this regard, it was evident from my site visit that the proposed extension would not cause adverse harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 20 or [address] in this respect. Based on this assessment and having regard to the guidance within the SPD with regard to extensions on north facing elevations, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight to neighbouring occupiers.

As such, this element of the scheme would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to overshadowing and sunlight and would comply with the relevant requirements of Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) which seeks to ensure that extensions are designed so neighbours can continue to enjoy reasonable living conditions.

My attention has been drawn by the appellant to correspondence issued by the Council during the course of the planning application. However, this does not alter my assessment, and I have therefore reached my own conclusions on the basis of the evidence before me which has been solely based on the planning merits of the proposal.

I note that rear extensions in the immediate vicinity, including along [address] and on nearby [address], are generally single storey in form. [name] acknowledge that there are single storey rear extensions within the immediately adjacent properties, I have no evidence before me to suggest that a two storey extension would not be acceptable in principle in this location and I have considered the appeal proposal on its own planning merits, with regard to its specific design, scale, siting, and relationship with its surroundings.

The appeal site is not located within a conservation area or close to any other heritage asset. This is not a factor which weighs in favour of allowing the appeal and does not diminish that harm that I have found on the first main issue.

The appellant has made reference to a previous appeal decision in another local authority area. I do not have the full details surrounding this appeal. However, appeal decisions from elsewhere generally do not provide a precedent for decision making and are determined on their own merits based on local planning policy and specific local circumstances. As such I have afforded this matter little weight.

[name] have found that the proposed rear extension would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, I have found there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the detached garage to the front of the property. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and for the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed.