Appeal 3279136

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding street scene.

No. 1 is a detached two-storey dwelling with asymmetrical roof, located on a corner plot at the junction between The Gills and [address] as well as The Whartons. The property incorporates a dormer on the roof slope of the side elevation.

The surrounding area is residential, and the street scene on The Gills and The Whartons in which context the appeal property can be viewed is characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached, single and two-storey terraced dwellings. Some of these, as identified by the appellant are of very different appearance and design. However, the scale and massing of the built form shows some uniformity, and the appeal property reflects the general size and form of properties in the area. The dwelling’s location at the junction makes it fairly prominent and visible within he wider streetscene.

The proposal would result in a property with two gable ends either side of a central forward-facing gable. The design of the extensions while being of similar materials, would subsume the original host dwelling and substantially increase its mass and volume. As a result, by virtue of its considerable increase in scale, and the lack of subservience of the extensions, the proposed development would appear overly dominant and disproportionate to the host property and its surroundings, particularly given its prominent location. The harm would be further exacerbated by the steel staircase, an uncharacteristic and obtrusive feature, on the side elevation which would project further than the original front wall of the host property.

While there are generous separation distances to surrounding properties and differences in land levels, the proposed extensions would still be read in the context of the surrounding built form and would not, for the reasons above, integrate with or relate well to it.

The appellant refers to an extant approval for part two storey, part single storey side and single storey rear extensions1 and contend that the additional elements in the Appeal proposal do not have such an impact over and above the scheme already approved. However, even a marginal increase in size and additional elements can have significant impact on the character and appearance of a scheme as is the case with the appeal proposal. In addition, the extensions proposed within the extant approval would be entirely subservient to the host dwelling. That would not be the case here.

The Council has expressed that the building which would result from the proposal would be too big for the plot. However, it is my view that, given the relatively large plot in comparison to those surrounding it, there would still be ample space in this corner plot to accommodate the proposal and garden space. However, even though acceptable in this regard, for the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy P10 of Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy (as amended 2019) and saved policies GP5 and BD6 of Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the National Planning Policy Framework which seek amongst other things to ensure that size, scale, design and layout of a new development is appropriate to its context and respects the character and quality of surrounding buildings as well as the size and form respecting the original building.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report, and on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall dismiss the appeal. [name]. 1 18/00394/FU