Single storey side extensions and erection of boundary wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2019 by Kate Mansell BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C2741/D/19/3219770 9 Boltby Road, YORK, YO30 4UW • 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 Paul Housam against the decision of City of York Council. • The application Ref 18/01827/FUL, dated 1 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 October 2018. • The development proposed is single storey side extensions and erection of boundary wall. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the boundary wall. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to the single storey side extensions at 9 Boltby Road, YORK, YO30 4UW in accordance with application Ref: 18/01827/FUL, dated 1 January 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted, in so far as it relates to the single storey side extensions, shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PH1 (Plan), PH2 (Existing and Proposed Elevations) and PH3 (Block Plan). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the single storey side extensions hereby permitted shall match those on the existing dwelling. Procedural Matters 3. The description of development on the application form is comprehensive and extends to include details of materials. Having regard to the plans, I have therefore taken the description from the decision notice and appeal form, as this is more precise. 4. The decision notice cites paragraphs 127, 128 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 24 July 2018. However, on 19 February 2019, the Government published an updated revised version (the Framework). In relation to the main issue in this appeal, Government policy has not materially changed. Accordingly, no parties have been prejudiced by my having regard to the 2019 version. Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/19/3219770 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Boundary wall 6. Boltby Road is part of a wider housing estate constructed in the 1990s. The area is characterised by detached houses of similar appearance that are regularly spaced and follow a broadly consistent building line. They are generally set back from the road behind a modest front garden, the majority of which are delineated by a low brick boundary wall. Within the wider estate, where dwellings present a side elevation to a primary road, a higher brick wall that encloses a rear garden is typically evident. 7. The appeal site at 9 Boltby Road is a detached dwelling positioned on the corner with Dale Dyke Grove. The front door to the property is directed towards Dale Dyke Grove, in front of which is a garden area up to the boundary that is enclosed by a low brick wall of approximately 0.5m in height. It is segregated from a further garden area to the north-eastern side of the house by a brick wall of approximately 1.8m. 8. The appeal proposal would remove a length of the 1.8m wall that currently projects from this north-eastern face and replace it with a wall that would extend diagonally for approximately 7.5m from the corner of the property towards the Dale Dyke Grove boundary. It would then span around the perimeter of the property, adjacent to the turning head of the cul-de-sac, before re-connecting back to the existing wall. 9. I appreciate the appellant’s view that the primary frontage of the house is on Boltby Road. However, from my observations on site, the front and principal elevation of the house, having regard to architectural features such as the doorway, bay windows and porch, is to Dale Dyke Grove. Consequently, the proposed wall would extend across the front garden of the house. 10. The character of dwellings on Dale Dyke Grove, which is a small cul-de-sac, is derived principally from their comparable set back from the road behind a front garden area. Where they are enclosed, it is by a low garden wall such as that evident on the appeal property. 11. I appreciate that the extent of the wall proposed would relate to less than 25% of the entire boundary of the host property and that it would be constructed in materials to match the existing wall. I also acknowledge that there is already a high wall to the house that bounds the rear of the turning head on Dale Dyke Grove. However, this wall does not cut across the front of the house and it does not, therefore, impact upon the open plan form of the cul-de-sac. In contrast, the appeal proposal, by virtue of its solid form, position and height, would be prominent in views into Dale Dyke Grove from Boltby Road and contrary to the open appearance of the street. It would, therefore, appear incongruous as a result and at odds with the prevailing form of front boundaries within this cul-de-sac. 12. The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of walls within the vicinity of the appeal site. No 15 Boltby Road is comparable to the appeal Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/19/3219770 3 property in presenting a more secondary frontage facing Boltby Road with its front elevation to Round Hill Link. It also has a similar wall to that proposed. However, Round Hill Link is a through route within the estate where higher walls are not uncommon. Similarly, whilst No 2 Grimwith Garth is an identical house type, the high boundary wall fronts Gouthwaith Close, which is a much larger cul-de-sac than Dale Dyke Grove. In the case of 10 Doe Park, the property lies at the end of a cul-de-sac and the high wall does not impact upon open views of front gardens of adjoining properties as a result. For these reasons, I do not find these examples, or that of 38 Harden Close, which is also on a main through route, to be directly comparable. In any event, I must assess the appeal proposal on its individual merits. 13. I therefore conclude that the boundary wall would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with the objectives of the Framework at paragraphs 127, 128 and 130, which place an emphasis on securing development of an appropriate design that functions well and adds to the quality of the area, being sympathetic to the surrounding built environment, including having regard to supplementary planning documents. In this context, I find the boundary wall contrary to the Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and Alterations (December 2012) (House Extensions SPD). The SPD advises that boundaries should have regard to the height, materials and character of the area and high walls can make a street appear unwelcoming and block attractive views of a garden. 14. It would also conflict with Policies H7 and GP1 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan (DCLP) (2005), which has been approved for development management purposes. These policies seek to ensure that residential proposals are sympathetic to the locality and respect or enhance the local environment. I consider these policies to accord with the broad objectives of the Framework noted above, and they can therefore be afforded considerable weight. 15. The Council have also cited Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan (LP) Publication Draft (2018) in the reason for refusal. The objectives of Policy D11 are similar to Policy H7 above, such that I find the proposal would be contrary to it in so far as it seeks to ensure that development responds positively to local character. However, the Publication Draft has yet to be examined and for this reason, I give this policy only very limited weight in my decision. Single storey side extensions 16. The proposal would introduce a small single storey extension to the Boltby Road frontage. It would be of limited depth, of matching materials to the main house and it would effectively infill a corner of the property. A further single storey extension to the north-east facing wall of the house would incorporate a pitched roof to match the form of the existing dwelling and it would also be constructed in materials to match the host property. 17. Given their modest scale, they would, in my view, be an appropriate addition to the house that would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Moreover, the Council considered these elements of the scheme to be acceptable and I see no reason to come to a different view. I therefore conclude that the proposed single storey side extensions would comply with the requirements of the relevant policies referred to above and they should therefore be allowed. Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/19/3219770 4 Split Decision 18. I am satisfied that the extensions to the side of the property are both physically and functionally severable from the proposed boundary wall. I have therefore issued a split decision, granting planning permission for the single storey side extensions. Other matters 19. I understand the appellant’s desire to want to create an additional area of back garden to extend the amount of safe, usable and private amenity space for existing and future occupiers of the house, and particularly for children to use, away from the road. I also appreciate that the increase would be meaningful in size. 20. However, and even with a letter of support from a neighbouring property, the needs and aspirations of the family who are currently occupying the house are likely to be short term compared with the permanent alteration to the street scene that would arise from the construction of the wall. Furthermore, planning decisions are taken in the public interest and therefore, these personal circumstances do not, in my view, outweigh the harm that I have identified previously. Conditions 21. In relation to the single storey side extensions, in addition to the standard time-limit condition, I have specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to materials is necessary to ensure that the appearance of the single storey side extensions would be satisfactory in relation to the host dwelling. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey side extensions but dismissed insofar as it relates to the boundary wall. Kate Mansell INSPECTOR