Erection of a front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 February 2018 by Matthew Birkinshaw BA(Hons) Msc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/18/3194160 12 George Street, Crosland Moor, Huddersfield, HD4 5AR  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 Mrs Akhtar against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/62/93793/W, dated 2 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are:  The effect of the proposal on the streetscene within George Street; and  The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of 10 and 14 George Street, having particular regard to outlook and sunlight. Reasons Streetscene 3. The appeal relates to a traditional 2-storey mid-terrace house. As part of the proposal a new porch would be erected to provide additional living space. Measuring roughly 3m deep by approximately 4.3m wide the extension would run the full width of the front elevation. 4. Despite its set-back from the pavement, the host property is elevated above street level. The proposed extension would therefore be a clearly visible and prominent addition to the front elevation. When viewed in the context of an otherwise largely traditional terrace, its size, siting and design would represent an unsympathetic and uncharacteristic addition. The use of matching materials would not mitigate the incongruous appearance of the porch, which would be harmfully out of place in this location. 5. I appreciate that the proposal would provide additional living space for a growing young family and improve daylight and ventilation. The appellant states that it would also add value to the property. Nevertheless, the benefits do not justify granting planning permission for such an uncharacteristic development that would contrast so significantly with its surroundings. Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/18/3194160 2 6. I therefore conclude that due to its size and siting the proposal would fail to respect the design features of adjacent buildings and would detract from the streetscene within George Street. As a result, it conflicts with Kirklees Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’) Policies BE1, BE2 and BE13 which, amongst other things, require development to be visually attractive, in keeping with its surroundings and respect the design features of adjacent buildings. For the same reasons the proposal also conflicts with UDP Policies BE14 and D2 which permit new development provided that it does not have a detrimental effect on visual amenity. Of the policies referred to by the Council these are the most relevant. Living Conditions – 10 and 14 George Street 7. By extending the full width of the front elevation the appeal proposal would be clearly visible from the adjacent ground floor window at 14 George Street, which the Council describes as less than 1m away. The relationship between the window and the proposed extension, combined with its height and depth, would result in a visually intrusive and dominating form of development. Although the existing occupiers have not objected, and no concerns have been raised regarding privacy, I consider that the imposing appearance of the scheme would be harmful to the outlook from no.14. 8. The relationship with no.10 is different. Despite being at a lower level the intervening doorway would separate the extension from the ground floor window on the front elevation. Views from the first floor window would also be unaffected. As a result, it would not dominate the outlook from no.10. In addition, because the front of the terrace is orientated towards the north-east the proposal would only cause a very limited loss of sunlight during the early parts of the day. Based on the evidence provided its size and scale would not be sufficient to cause any significant overshadowing. Situated to the south of the porch no material loss of sunlight would occur at no.14 either. 9. I therefore conclude that by reason of its size and siting the proposal would prejudice the outlook from 14 George Street, to the detriment of the occupant’s living conditions. As a result, it conflicts with UDP Policies BE14 and D2 which, amongst other things, permit new development provided that it does not prejudice residential amenity. Other Matters 10. I note that the appellant has tried to reach a compromise with the Council by offering to reduce the size of the extension. However, I am required to consider the submitted scheme on its merits, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, and I have determined the appeal on that basis. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Matthew Birkinshaw INSPECTOR