Appeal 6008045

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “as built 2 storey side/rear extension and porch to front of property” at [site address] , Bradford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04422/HOU, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted is as shown on the approved plans reference: As built plans and elevations 25-054-01.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal, which seeks retrospective planning permission.

The Council’s delegated report raises concerns regarding the effect of the rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] (No. 49). These matters, however, do not form part of the reasons for refusal and I have no substantive reason to disagree with that position. The crux of the matter relates to the front porch and its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, this forms the main issue in this appeal.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling that has been extended to the side, rear and front. As a result, the dwelling now presents as a substantially enlarged building. The surrounding area is residential, with dwellings set back from the highway behind grass verges, and modest front gardens. Whilst many properties on this side of the road display a degree of uniformity through features such as continuous or small door canopies, the street scene nevertheless exhibits variation, particularly through the presence of a number of front porch additions of differing scale and design. A degree of variation in front additions is therefore a recognised component of the character of the area.

The porch is generous in scale. However, in the context of the significantly extended host dwelling it reads as a proportionate addition, sitting comfortably within the enlarged frontage rather than appearing as unsympathetic or dominant. Its design draws upon the established built form and detailing of the dwelling, incorporating matching materials and a gabled form with a roof pitch that reflects both the main roof and the extended elements. When viewed within the varied streetscape, where different forms of porch development are evident, the proposal does not appear discordant or incongruous. As such, it achieves a cohesive appearance set back from the highway behind a generously sized front garden.

For these reasons, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area. As such it complies with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District, [name], 2017. As well as some guidance contained in the Householder Supplementary Planning Document, 2012 (SPD). Amongst other things, these require development to achieve good design and be appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale, details and materials.

The rear extension slightly impinges the ’45 degree rule’ set out in the SPD. The SPD is guidance only and no such rule is set out in the development plan policies provided. The boundary treatment between the appeal property and No. 49, is of a low height, affording clear intervisibility between the respective rear garden areas at present. The insertion of a rear door within the extension does not give rise to any materially greater perception or opportunity for overlooking than already exists.

The development is already complete and given my findings, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted and no further conditions are necessary in this instance.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the condition stated.