Two storey side and single storey front and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 July 2018 by Andrew McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/18/3200159 6 The Meadows, Denby Dale, Huddersfield HD9 8TQ  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 Andrew Pygott against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/62/94118/E, dated 30 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is two storey side and single storey front and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I note that the Publication Draft Local Plan for Kirklees (PDLP) is currently under Examination in Public and I have had due regard to its progress through the examination process. As such, given the advanced stage reached by the PDLP, significant weight should be given to its relevant policies. Notwithstanding this, on the basis of the evidence before me, and until such time as the PDLP is adopted, the existing policies within the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan 2007 (UDP) remain part of the statutory development plan against which the proposal should be assessed. Accordingly, I have determined this appeal on that basis. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the:  character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and  living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of whether it would be overbearing and with regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal relates to a two-storey detached dwelling within a modern residential development consisting of properties predominantly built in artificial stone. The host property has a gable roof finished in concrete tiles and is set back from the public highway on The Meadows. It is accessed by a shared driveway which runs through a small front garden area and passes the front elevations of the neighbouring dwellings at 4 and 8 The Meadows. The property also has a rear garden which provides private amenity space. The boundaries of the host property Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/18/3200159 2 consist of hedges and walls which run along the northern edge of the property and fencing along its western and southern edges. 5. Properties in the surrounding area are similar in character and style to the host property with the predominant materials being artificial stone and concrete roof tiles. Surrounding properties provide a mix one and two-storey dwellings in a range of designs and sizes within the local street scene. To the south of the host property are 2 two-storey dwellings at 20 and 22 Inkerman Way (Nos 20 and 22). These have a similar appearance to the appeal property and are positioned on slightly elevated ground above it. 6. From what I have seen and read, cumulatively, the proposed extensions would result in the dwelling being substantially larger in scale and footprint than the existing host property. I note that the proposed rear extension would project beyond the existing rear elevation of the property by more than 3 metres. As such, it would not comply with Policy BE14 of the UDP. Notwithstanding this, I find that the nature of the proposed extensions to the side and rear of the property would be acceptable in terms of their design, height and scale with regard to the character and appearance of the host property. Furthermore, due to the host property being set back from the public highway, I find that the proposed side and rear extensions would not be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 7. The proposed front extension to the host property would project significantly forward of the existing front elevation. Although, the host property is set back from the street and the proposed garage extension would be single storey, I find that it would result in a large garage door predominantly forming the principal elevation of the property when viewed from the highway. This would have a detrimental impact on the street scene. I acknowledge that the neighbouring property at 4 The Meadows has a large garage door facing the public highway. Nevertheless, in that instance the garage door does not, in my view, dominate the front elevation of that property. 8. As a result, I find that the projection, scale and visual impact of the proposed front extension would be significantly harmful to the appearance of the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, the position of the proposed garage would be visually dominant and would result in the host property appearing out of keeping with other dwellings on The Meadows where garages are predominantly set back from main frontages. Therefore, having carefully considered these matters, I find that the proposal would have a substantive harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding street scene. 9. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies D2, BE1, BE2 and BE13 of the UDP and relevant guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Amongst other matters, these policies and guidance seek to ensure that development is of high design quality and its materials, scale, layout and mass respect and have regard to the character and appearance of its surroundings. Living conditions 10. The Council states that the proposal would have an overbearing impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers at No.22 and that this would be unacceptably harmful to their living conditions. From the evidence and my observations on site, I find that the proposed two-storey side extension would be Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/18/3200159 3 between 9 and 10 metres from the rear elevation of No.22. Whilst No.22 is slightly elevated above the appeal property, I find this unlikely to have any mitigating effect on the overbearing impact of the proposal or its effect on the outlook of the occupiers of No.22. 11. The appellant argues that the occupiers of the adjacent properties at Nos 20 and 22 would only see the side of the proposed two-storey side extension and that only the upper part of the gable wall would be visible above the existing hedge along the shared boundary. I appreciate this and acknowledge that the host property has an existing blank gable wall facing the rear of No.22. Nonetheless, I find that the proposal would result in the blank gable wall being substantively closer to the rear elevation of No.22 and its openings. As a result, notwithstanding the potential extent of the proposal only being visible above the hedged boundary, I find that due to its proximity, the impact of the two-storey element of the scheme would be overbearing and materially detrimental to the outlook of the occupiers of No.22. 12. Having had due regard to the above, and taking account my observations during the site visit, I find that the proposed scheme would be harmful to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers at No.22. Moreover, I find there to be no mitigation measures which could be implemented that would suitably and adequately address that harm. 13. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would be overbearing and would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 22 Inkerman Way with regard to their outlook from the rear their property. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policies D2 and BE14 of the UDP and the relevant guidance within the Framework. Amongst other matters, these policies and guidance seek to ensure that development proposals have no significant adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring or future occupiers. Conclusion 14. The proposed development would increase the amount of living space at the host property and include a workshop and garage. It would use external materials which would be visually in keeping with the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Furthermore, I have given due consideration to the appellant’s point that other properties on The Meadows have undertaken extensions which are positioned in front of windows of neighbouring properties and have been found to have no adverse impact on living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Notwithstanding this, I do not have full details of those other schemes before me. As such, I give only limited weight to these in my decision making. In any event, I must assess and determine the appeal proposal on its own merits and circumstances and I confirm that I have done so. 15. In addition, I note that the Parish Council has no objection to the scheme. Whilst this may be so, such support has limited weight when considered against all other relevant matters before me. As such, and on balance, I find that the benefits of the scheme would be outweighed by the significant harm I have identified. 16. Therefore, for the above reasons, and having had due regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR