Two storey side extension with new porch to front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2018 by Gareth Wildgoose BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/D/18/3211506 32 Elmwood Road, Keighley BD22 7DW  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 Priestley against the decision of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref 18/02664/HOU, dated 22 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 August 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension with new porch to front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension with new porch to front elevation at 32 Elmwood Road, Keighley BD22 7DW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02664/HOU, dated 22 June 2018, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: SK7277-P01; SK7277-P02 Rev A; SK7277-P03 Rev A; SK7277-P04. Procedural Matter 2. Planning permission has previously been granted by the Council in 2017 (Ref: 17/03371/HOU) for a two storey side extension and front porch at the appeal property. At the time of my visit, the work on the two storey side extension and the front porch structure had commenced. However, the works that have taken place also include a further single storey section at the front of the property as proposed in the submitted plans before me. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site consists of a two storey semi-detached property located in a corner position at the junction of Elmwood Road and Elmwood Terrace in a predominantly residential area. The site turns the corner into Elmwood Terrace and therefore, the semi-detached pair has a different orientation to the majority of properties which face Elmwood Road. The immediate surroundings in each street include semi-detached pairs of properties with a similarity of proportions, form and fenestration. However, there are variations in building Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3211506 2 lines and ridge levels of roofs in Elmwood Road which follow the changes in land levels as the road rises towards the appeal site. There are also significant differences in wall and roof materials, some porch alterations to original canopy entrances and single storey extensions to individual properties, which have reduced the sense of regularity and uniformity of the semi-detached pairs. 5. Based upon the evidence before me, the two storey side extension granted planning permission in 2017 is similar to the two storey element of the proposed extension before me. When taking account of the extent of works that have already taken place, I give considerable weight to the fallback position of the extant planning permission granted for the two storey side extension. The design of the two storey element of the proposed extension is, therefore, acceptable and would appear subservient due to its set back position from the front building line and set down at ridge level of the roof. 6. With regard to the above, the works undertaken on the two storey side extension to date have already altered the proportions of No 32 when compared with the adjoining property in the semi-detached pair and other semi-detached properties close by. The Council’s concerns relate specifically to the alterations to the front porch in so far as it now extends at ground floor level across the front of the two storey side extension where the integral garage would be accessed. The single storey front extension would project out from the front of the existing property and the two storey side extension by around 1.5m. However, when viewed in the context of the cumulative scale and massing of the property and the two storey side extension, the front projection would appear relatively modest. 7. The overall width of the front extension would be more substantial than the front porch which has planning permission. However, when taking account of the varied appearance of properties that face Elmwood Terrace nearby and the different alignment of No 32 on a corner plot when compared with most properties that face Elmwood Road, there is an opportunity for alterations to the appearance of the dwelling without causing harm to the character of the street scenes. The single storey scale of the extension and ridge height below the first floor windows would ensure subservience to the overall proportions and massing of the front elevation of the property and the two storey side extension. In those particular circumstances, the front extension would not appear unduly prominent or dominant despite the corner position of the site. 8. The resultant arrangement of doors and windows set forward at the front would differ from the majority of other properties in the surrounding area. However, the design of the single storey front extension would have some similarities to an extension that wraps around the front of No 20 Elmwood Road and therefore, it would not appear out of place. Furthermore, the submitted plans include details of an appropriate render finish to walls, together with roof tiles and window details to match those existing. Consequently, it would contribute to an overall balance and coherence of the extended front elevation. In such circumstances, the design and scale of the proposed front extension would not represent an incongruous, overly prominent or harmful addition to the front elevation of the property or relative to those surrounding. 9. In reaching the above findings, I have taken into account that the Bradford Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted April 2012, guides that extensions forward of the front wall, other than small porches and Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3211506 3 canopies, are unlikely to be acceptable. However, the particular circumstances of the surrounding area, including the significant differences in materials of nearby properties and variations and alterations to properties in the wider street scenes, are influential factors upon the absence of harm in this case. 10. I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would not conflict, therefore, with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted July 2017. When taken together the policies seek to ensure that development is of a good design and appropriate to its context in terms of layout, scale, density, details and materials. The policies are consistent with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. Other Matters 11. The Council have identified no harm with respect to the living conditions of surrounding properties or in terms of highway safety or parking arrangements. Based on the evidence before me and my observations of the site and its surroundings, I have no reason to take a different view on those matters. Conditions 12. To provide certainty in terms of the planning permission granted, a condition is required to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans before me. The submitted plans include appropriate details of materials and therefore, a separate condition relating to such matters is not necessary. Similarly, a time limit for commencement of development is not required in this case as work on the two storey side extension and front porch/extension had started at the time of my visit. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the aforementioned condition. Gareth Wildgoose INSPECTOR