Erection of a single-storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/18/3206810 52 Broad Oak, Linthwaite, Huddersfield, HD7 5TE  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 and Mrs R Booth against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Council.  The application Ref 2018/62/91623/W, dated 12 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 June 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The address of the appeal property is given as 52 Broad Oak, although road signs and maps of the area appear to refer to the name of the road as Cowlersley Lane. To avoid confusion, I have used the address as given on the application form and decision notice, and referred throughout to Broad Oak. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area around Broad Oak. Reasons 4. No 52 is a modern detached stone-built house, situated on the northern side of Broad Oak. It is in the middle of a long row of modern, mainly detached houses on this side of the road. The houses are of varied design, though with use of similar materials throughout. They all have pitched roofs with gable ends. There are a number of small front projections and canopies on the houses along the row. Nos 52 and 54 are of similar design, each having a large integral garage that projects forward on its eastern side some 3.5 metres beyond the main front elevation of the house, and that has a cat-slide roof continuing the main front roof slope. 5. The proposed development would involve the erection of a single-storey front extension some 2 metres deep and 4 metres wide on the western side of the front elevation. It would have a hipped roof and 2 roof-lights on the front roof slope. It would match the existing house in terms of materials used. Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/18/3206810 2 6. The Council contends that the proposed extension, by reason of its design, scale and location on the principal elevation of the host property would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building, and that it would introduce an unsympathetic and incongruous form of development which would detract unduly from the character of the host building, the wider street scene along Broad Oak and wider local area. 7. The appellant contends that the new extension is small in comparison to the large scale of the dwelling, that it is located over an existing window, and that it has a roof pitch to match the cat slide roof of the garage. It is also set behind the line of the garage front wall. Moreover, the appellant notes that there are a number of front projections at houses along the road in the vicinity of the appeal property. 8. The proposed extension would have a depth of some 2 metres and would have a hipped roof, with roof-lights in the front roof slope. Whilst there are other houses with front projections in the vicinity, all appear to have mono-pitch roofs to match the roof style and shape of the main house. Moreover, most of these projections would appear to be of more modest depth. 9. In the light of the above, I consider that the extension as proposed would be of a scale and design that is unsympathetic to the host property and the surrounding area. The proposed hipped roof of the extension would be an incongruous feature and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property. 10. I therefore find that the proposed extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the wider street scene along this part of Broad Oak. On this basis, it would conflict with Policy D2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which requires that development proposals do not prejudice visual amenity, and also with Policies B1, B2, BE13 and BE14 of the UDP, which relate to issues of design, including that new development should be in keeping with surrounding development, and that extensions to dwellings should respect the design features of the existing house and adjacent buildings, including roof styles. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR