Proposed single storey side extension and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2018 by Felicity Thompson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7th August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/D/18/3201234 16 Southmere Terrace, Bradford, BD7 4EB  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 Arfan Nawaz against the decision of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref 18/00727/HOU, dated 16 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘proposed single storey side extension and front porch’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council states that the proposed front porch extension constitutes permitted development and therefore does not raise any objections to this element of the proposal. Whether the proposed porch constitutes permitted development is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However as no other party raises the proposed porch as an area of concern, I am content to determine the appeal only on the proposed single storey side extension, and I am satisfied that no party is prejudiced by me doing so. 3. The second reason for refusal relates to a lack of information in respect of subsidence, drainage and site levels and sections but in doing so the Council did not cite any development plan policies, nor have any been put forward as part of the appeal. Accordingly I have determined the appeal on these issues in reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed single storey side extension upon:  Land stability  The character and appearance of the area; and  Drainage. Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3201234 2 Reasons Land stability 5. As set out in PPG the planning system has an important role in considering land stability by minimising the risk and effects of land stability on property, infrastructure and the public. 6. The proposed extension would be in close proximity to a neighbouring house and the public highway. No site levels or sections were provided with the application however from my site observations it seems to me that the proposed development would involve significant excavation and remodelling. 7. Given the likely level of excavation required for the proposed development, and the potential implications of that for land stability, it is fundamental, in my judgement, to establish in advance of planning permission being granted whether the proposed development, adjacent properties and infrastructure, would be put at an unacceptable risk from land stability. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, I consider that a precautionary approach is necessary and thus a condition would not be appropriate. 8. I conclude that, without any evidence to the contrary, the development could pose a risk to land stability in respect of neighbouring dwellings and infrastructure. In the absence of any relevant development plan policies being before me, I find that the development would be contrary to paragraphs 170 and 178 of the Framework which seek to ensure that new and existing development is not put at unacceptable risk or adversely affected by land instability. Character and appearance 9. The appeal property is a semi-detached house located at the top of a relatively steep street in a residential area consisting of pairs of semi-detached houses of largely uniform appearance. The house occupies a corner plot located at the junction with another residential street, Southmere Drive. 10. The proposed side extension has a simple form and would be constructed in materials to match the house. Whilst it is relatively wide, given its location on a corner plot with generous spacing to the side and set down from the road above I do not consider that it would appear obtrusive in this context. 11. I therefore consider that the proposed side extension would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the house and street scene. Despite technical breaches of the Local Development Framework for Bradford Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), the site specific circumstances of this appeal mean that the scheme would still comply with the overall amenity and design aims of policies DS1, DS3, DS5 and SC9 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District Core Strategy Development Plan Document. Drainage 12. The Council have provided no explanation about the impact of the proposed development on drainage however; I note third party comments about potential water accumulation. The appellant states that no new drainage point is being created and neither party has provided substantive evidence about the effects on drainage. Given that the proposal is for a domestic extension and in Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3201234 3 the absence of evidence to the contrary I consider that drainage details could be controlled by condition. Therefore based on the information before me the effects on drainage would not be a reason to dismiss the appeal and there is no conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding. Other matters 13. I understand the wishes of the appellant to provide more accommodation for his family however, these personal circumstances are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. 14. The misgivings expressed by the appellant about the way the Council dealt with this application are separate from the planning merits of the proposed development and they have no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Conclusion 15. I have found no harm in respect of the effect of the proposed extension upon the character and appearance of the area and have no evidence that it would result in any adverse effects with regard to drainage. However there is insufficient information about land stability to be confident that the proposed development could be carried out without causing harm to local property and infrastructure. For this reason I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Felicity Thompson INSPECTOR