Appeal 6004561

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council considers that the proposed front and rear dormers would not result in any harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I agree with this finding and therefore the main issues apply to the relevant elements of the proposal, as stated below.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the impact of the proposed single-storey rear extension on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to the impact on daylight at 10 [name] (No 10).

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, stone-built mid-terrace dwelling with small, enclosed yards to the front and rear. The surrounding area is residential, characterised by similar stone terraces which result in a strong uniform, cohesive quality to the street scene that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

[name] is atypical in that it runs at right angles to the neighbouring road of [address], resulting in both front and rear elevations being readily visible from public vantage points. Whilst front and rear dormer extensions are evident in the area, the terrace row containing the appeal property does not feature any front dormers. A limited number of rear extensions are evident on other terrace rows, however, the majority of these do not extend across the full depth of the rear yards.

Although single storey and subordinate in height to the host dwelling, the proposed dual pitched rear extension would extend over more than half the width of the original dwelling and project the full depth of the rear yard. As a result, it would be an obtrusive addition whose prominence would be increased by its raised effective height arising from the internal and external level differences. The harm caused would be exacerbated by the absence of any rear projections along this side of [name] and its high degree of visibility within the street scene. Consequently, the rear extension would read as a visually intrusive addition to the host dwelling and its surroundings. Accordingly, it would be contrary to principle 2.10 of the [name] and Design Supplementary Planning Document (July 2024) (the SPD) which advises that extensions to dwellings, amongst other matters, must respect the scale, form, proportions and character and appearance of the original building and that of the locality.

The proposed front dormer would be introduced into a terrace where no such features currently exist and would occupy a large proportion of the front roof slope. This would be contrary to principle 3.3 of the SPD. It advises that front dormers are generally unacceptable, and exceptionally where they are not, that they should be visually subordinate and occupy no more than half the roof’s width or depth. This would not be the case here. The scale and bulk of the proposed dormer would materially alter the character and appearance of the appeal property, resulting in a discordant addition that would be out of keeping with the uniform appearance of the terrace row.

I acknowledge that there are a number of properties in the locality which have front dormers and rear extensions. However, they are two few in number and too infrequent to have changed the character and appearance of the street scene in which the appeal property is located to the extent that the proposed development would fit in. The presence of these does not therefore outweigh the harm that I have otherwise found.

My attention has been drawn to the appeal decision for the nearby [address] (APP/A4710/D/23/3330475) which concerned front and rear dormers, although limited detail is available regarding the specific design of that development. However, that decision predated the SPD, which provides specific guidance on residential extensions. As a result, the circumstances of that decision are materially different to those of the appeal before me. Reference to this decision therefore has not altered my findings in relation to this main issue

Turning to the rear dormer, the Council confirm that this could be built under permitted development rights and would therefore be acceptable. I see no strong reason to disagree with this viewpoint.

Notwithstanding my favourable findings in relation to the rear dormer, for the above reasons, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. This would conflict with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 - 2032/33 (March 2023) (the Local Plan) which seeks to ensure developments respect or enhance the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings, taking account of their local context. I have also had due regard to Principle’s 2.10 and 3.3 of the SPD, which add to my conclusions in this respect.

The proposal includes a single-storey rear extension which would be sited alongside the common boundary with No 10 and would extend to the full depth of the rear yard. Owing to the proximity of the rear extension to a ground floor window at No 10, the depth of its projection and its position relative to the orientation of the sun, the rear extension would materially harm the amount of daylight experienced by the occupiers of No 10 within their property.

Consequently, I find that the proposed rear extension would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents at No 10, with particular regard to daylight. This would conflict with Policy BT2 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development proposals do not result in significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.

The appellant suggests that a reduced-depth rear extension, compliant with the 45-degree guideline in Policy BT2 of the Local Plan, would be acceptable or alternatively that the rear extension could be omitted from the scheme and then pursued under permitted development rights. However, neither scenario forms part of the scheme before me. I must therefore consider the appeal on the basis of the drawings before me, such that this does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

There would be some benefits associated with the proposal including improved living conditions, through the provision of additional floorspace, and efficient use of the existing building. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm identified above.

I acknowledge that the appeal property lies outside a conservation area, is not a heritage asset and raises no concerns in respect of flood risk and biodiversity. However, the avoidance of harm in these regards does not amount to a planning benefit, rather they are expectations of local and national policy. They do not address nor surmount the harm I have identified above.

I note that no objections have been received from neighbours. However, the lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.