Two-storey residential annexe at 14 Fagley Drive, Bradford

“Type of Application/Proposal and Address: Householder planning application for the construction of a two-storey residential annexe to rear of 14 Fagley Drive, Bradford…”

“Appraisal: Background Planning permission was granted for a single storey annexe in the rear garden (case number 24/01512/HOU). This is a resubmission application for the construction of a two-storey residential annexe. The previous application (25/01902/HOU) was refused on grounds that the design, bulk and footprint of the annexe was not deemed ancillary to the main dwelling.”

“Site Description: A semi-detached dwelling located within a residential cul-de-sac consisting of the same property type and architectural design. The dwelling is situated in a large plot tucked into the corner of the cul-de-sac bound by multiple dwellings. It has a long front garden space that is hard surfaced in paving slabs for off street parking.”

“Relevant Site History: 24/01512/HOU Detached single storey outbuilding to rear GRANT 25.07.2024 25/01902/HOU Detached two storey residential annexe to rear REFUSE 31.10.2025”

“The external footprint (approx 73sqm) is substantially larger than the footprint of the parent dwelling (approx 47sqm) and the gross internal floorspace is significantly larger than what is expected of an annexe and is more akin to a detached dwelling. Moreover, the annexe is larger than the parent dwelling. As such it cannot be considered as being ancillary to it.”

“The design, bulk and footprint of the annexe cumulatively result in a development that is not subservient in scale to the parent dwelling. The degree of separation between the annexe and the parent dwelling (approx.16m-24m) and the level of accommodation provided emphasises that the development is greater in scale than is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and could easily be severed from the parent dwelling and function independently from it.”

“Planning Balance and Reason for Refusal of Planning Permission: The proposed development is not considered harmful to residential amenity, highway safety or the natural environment. However, the design, bulk and footprint results in a development that is greater in scale than can be considered ancillary to the parent dwelling. The degree of…”

“Reasons for Refusal: The design, bulk and footprint of the proposed annexe results in an over dominating addition to the residential curtilage. The level of accommodation and separation between the annexe and parent dwelling is such that the resulting scale is greater than can be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling.”

“Publicity and Number of Representations: The application was publicised by neighbour notification letter which expired on 26 March 2026. Two representations have been received in support from one from local Ward Councillor, which also includes a request for the application to be referred to planning committee should officers be mindful of refusal and comments from the office of Bradford East MP.”

“Summary of Representations Received: Do not see how the plans could adversely affect nearby residents. Ongoing need for suitable housing that supports expanding families. Proposals such as this play an important role in ensuring residents are able to remain in their communities in appropriate living conditions. Development would not be detrimental to surrounding area. No loss of local amenities.”

“That the application be approved subject to the following conditions.”

“Members did not consider the application represents a separate dwelling and did not agree with Officers’ reasons for refusal as set out in the Strategic Director, Growth technical report.”