Two storey side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 September 2017 by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/17/3177166 16 Northfield Avenue, Lockwood, Huddersfield HD1 3SH  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Mohammad Shakeel against the decision of Kirklees Council.  The application Ref 2017/62/90217/W, dated 17 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 March 2017.  The development proposed is two storey side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The site is located in an elevated position on the corner of Northfield Avenue and Northfield Grove. It features an end of terrace two storey house, constructed from stone, brick and render with a hipped tiled roof. The dwelling has front, rear and side gardens, and is sited on a suburban residential road. The area is characterised by two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings of similar materials, with some older stone built dwellings to the north. 4. The scheme proposes two storey side and rear extensions. Northfield Avenue is on a slight slope running west to east, however, Northfield Grove slopes steeply southwards with the rear boundary of the dwelling being significantly lower than the front. The side elevation of the dwelling is in line with the front elevations of the houses on Northfield Grove, and I agree with the Council that there is a certain degree of uniformity to the street pattern. 5. The projection of the extension to the side would be wider than the front elevation of the host building. This, coupled with its siting in line with the front elevation, extension of the existing roof form and occupation of the entire side elevation would result in a considerably dominant and overbearing addition to the host dwelling. 6. Despite the separation between the rear of the property and Northfield Grove, due to its elevated position and degree of projection, the proposal would substantially break the build line on Northfield Grove, harmfully affecting the Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/17/3177166 2 character and consistency of the street scene. Moreover due to the steeply sloping nature of the site, the resultant height, bulk and massing of the proposal would also be overly prominent, incongruous and dominant within the street scene, particularly when viewed from the south. 7. Consequently, I find that the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal would be in conflict with Policies D2, BE1 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan (March 1999) which aim to ensure that development is of a good quality design that does not prejudice visual amenity and the character of the surroundings. I also find conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which always seeks to secure high quality design. Other Matters 8. My attention has been drawn to discussions and meetings between the appellant and the Council regarding amendments to the scheme; but they do not affect my assessment of this appeal. 9. I noted that there were a number of other extensions in the area, and in particular the extension at 2 Northfield Avenue. I find that the extension at No 2 is of a different design to this proposal, being set back from the front elevation with a reduced roof height and a narrower width; which allows it to be subordinate when viewed from Northfield Avenue. However, I also find that this addition serves to confirm that the proposal before me would be a tall, prominent and dominant addition to the street scene when viewed from the rear and side. In any event, each proposal falls to be considered on its own particular merits and that is what I have done here. 10. The introduction of terracing and planting to reduce the effect of the proposal is not before me and I give this limited weight. 11. The requirement for additional accommodation, the acceptable effect of the development upon neighbouring living conditions and the absence of objection from nearby residents would not outweigh the significant harm I have found in relation to character and appearance. Conclusion 12. Having had regard to all other matters raised, and for the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Katie McDonald INSPECTOR