Front and rear single storey extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 May 2025 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/25/3362904 3 Lund Drive, Heckmondwike, Kirklees, WF16 0BT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Sachin Kothavale against the decision of Kirklees Council. • The application Ref is 2024/62/93543/E. • The development proposed is front and rear single storey extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front and rear single storey extensions at 3 Lund Drive, Heckmondwike, Kirklees, WF16 0BT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/62/93543/E, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision; 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the original building. Procedural Matters 2. The Council notes that a previous application for the “demolition of rear utility and front conservatory and erection of single storey” was refused1. 3. The Council raises no concerns with the proposed extensions to the rear of the appeal property and consequently, this decision focuses on the proposed front extension. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property comprises a stone-built detached bungalow located in a relatively prominent position inside a bend along Lund Drive. The topography of the 1 Reference: 2022/92268. Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/25/3362904 2 area results in the dwelling sitting higher than dwellings on the opposite side of Lund Drive. 6. The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of stone-built bungalows set back from the road behind front gardens and with parking areas to the side and further gardens to the rear. The presence of gardens, gaps between dwellings and views to the countryside beyond provides for a green and spacious character. 7. During my site visit, I observed that dwellings along this part of Lund Drive appear notable for their uniform appearance. This is particularly derived from similarities in the height and size of dwellings, the predominance of brown timber-framed windows and the common use of stone and tile materials. 8. I also noted during my site visit that the appeal dwelling’s existing front conservatory appears incongruous within a street scene where no other such addition exists. The conservatory’s prominent position at the front of the dwelling and its extensive glazing results in the host dwelling appearing in contrast with the more solid, stone- built frontages of neighbouring dwellings. In this way, the presence of the conservatory detracts from the area’s otherwise attractive sense of uniformity. 9. The proposed development to the front of the appeal dwelling would replace the existing conservatory with a single storey stone-built extension. Whilst it would project slightly further forward than the conservatory it would replace, the proposed front extension would be considerably less wide. Further, the proposed front extension would be constructed of stone and tiles to match the host dwelling. 10.I find that these factors would combine to result in an extension that would appear modest in scale, in proportion with the existing dwelling and considerably more in keeping with neighbouring dwellings than the conservatory that it would replace. The proposed hipped roof would be less wide than the hipped roof of the existing conservatory and would sit below and appear subservient to the main roof. It would tie in well with the dwelling’s roofscape, leading the proposal to appear as a sensitively designed modern addition constructed with appropriately matching materials. 11.Consequently, rather than fail to respect the character of the host dwelling and appear discordant in the street scene, the proposed front extension would complement the appearance of the appeal dwelling and make a positive contribution to Lund Drive’s attractive uniform qualities. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Kirklees Local Plan Strategy and Policies (2019) Policy LP24; or to the Kirklees House Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2021), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Conditions 13.I have considered the conditions against the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework. I find that a condition specifying materials is necessary in the interests of local character. Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/25/3362904 3 Conclusion 14.For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful. N McGurk INSPECTOR