First floor extension, raised front boundary wall and new retaining wall to side to allow for disability lift

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2026 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005009 11 Hollingwood Mount, Bradford BD7 4DD • 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 Yasser Amin against the decision of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. • The application reference is 25/02884/HOU. • The development proposed is first floor extension, raised front boundary wall and new retaining wall to side to allow for disability lift. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents of 9 Hollingwood Mount with regard to outlook; and 15 Hollingwood Mount with regard to privacy. Reasons 3. The council’s concerns relate only to the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents of the two adjacent properties. Although there is some inconsistency with regard to the content of the officer report, I have considered the proposal on the basis of the formal reasons for refusal. 4. The property to the east, 9 Hollingwood Mount, is a large end of terrace property that sits close to, but forward of, the appeal property. The rear elevation of number 9 is also well forward of the appeal dwelling. A very high dividing fence has been erected between these properties on top of the dividing stone wall. I have assumed that this boundary structure is lawful. The neighbouring property has a small lawn and well-kept boarders immediately to the rear of the house. Beyond these are a parking area and a second small lawn adjacent to a garage. 5. The increase in height of the dwelling would result in a substantial increase in the height of the side facing gable, close to the shared boundary. This would extend beyond the rear of the neighbouring house. Even with the high fence in place, the higher building would undoubtedly be overbearing when within the immediately adjacent area of garden. It would also be overly dominant when viewed from the nearest ground and first floor windows and when entering and leaving the rear door of the property. It would also increase shading in the evenings. It is not clear what rooms the two nearest windows serve but, in any event, the proposal would be Appeal Decision: 6005009 2 unacceptably overbearing and overly dominant when within the rear garden and when accessing the house. 6. As number 9 is a relatively large house with only a limited garden, the increase in enclosure is of greater concern. Furthermore, given that the front door is accessed from a flight of stairs, it is likely that the rear entrance to the house, with private parking provision also to the rear, would be particularly valued and well used. Although the neighbouring residents have not objected to the proposal, I find this relationship to be unacceptable. It would conflict with the amenity requirements of policy DS5(F) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017. It would also be at odds with the amenity requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. Reference has also been made to the impact on the residents of 15 Hollingwood Mount. The higher dwelling would be imposing when viewed from that property particularly as the side elevation would be of a considerable depth and increased height. As that dwelling is set away from the boundary and has a large garden, the impact would be of a lesser concern, but it would nevertheless be extremely imposing when in the adjacent area of garden. There would also be an increase in shading in the mornings. This would not be a positive relationship. The large window in the proposed side elevation at first floor level would be unacceptable, even if obscure glazed. However, I understand that this would not be required and could be deleted by condition. 8. The proposal would offer a number of benefits. The street scene would be improved as would the access to the dwelling. The proposal gains support from policy DS5(C) which seeks to ensure buildings provide easy access for all. There would clearly be benefits to the appellant; and the local economy from the works. However, even setting aside my concerns with regard to the relationship with number 15 which has not been clearly articulated by the council, I conclude that the proposal would be unacceptably overbearing for the residents of 9 Hollingwood Mount. I am not persuaded that the benefits of the proposal outweigh this concern. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR