Appeal 3280377

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development provided on the appeal form and Council’s decision notice as this is more accurate than that given on the application form. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the proposal also comprises the removal of an existing chimney and other amendments to the boundary wall to the side of the property. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

It is clear from the Council’s Planning Officer’s Report that the local planning authority granted planning permission in September 2020, Ref 20/03602/FU, for alterations including single storey side extension; single storey rear extension; infill wall to existing boundary wall to side; outbuildings to front. From the evidence I have before me, it is apparent that this appeal proposal only differs from the previously approved scheme in respect of the proposed amendments to the roof of the property.

Having regard to the previous planning permission and the Council’s Planning Officer’s Report it appears that there is no disagreement about the acceptability of the other elements of the proposal. Therefore, I shall confine my detailed considerations to the elements of the proposal which affect the roof.

The appellants contend that the proposed dormers which form part of the proposal would represent permitted development. However, this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is open to the appellants to apply to have the matter determined under sections 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal.

Following the Council’s determination of the planning application and prior to the submission of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. There are no substantive changes relevant to the appeal before me and therefore no interested parties would be prejudiced by my consideration of the 2021 version of the Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed dormers on the character and appearance of the existing building and area, with particular reference to the impact on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset.

The appeal site is located on the corner of the junction between [address] and [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential including a mix of larger detached and semi-detached properties, and low-rise apartments. Properties are generally 2 to 3-storeys in height with some bungalows in the locality.

The appeal site is a 3-storey red brick property at the end of a terrace of 3 properties. It was formed through the sub-division of one of a pair of semi-detached villas. The property has a feature gable and bay windows fronting [address] with the main access from [address]. There is a large garden with several trees to the front of the property bounded to [address] by a high stone wall and to [address] by a high red brick wall. To the rear of the property is a small yard with some trees along with parking and a garage.

The proposal includes the installation of 3 curved dormers with windows to the roof plane facing [address] and a curved blind dormer with no window to the other plane of the roof.

The curved roofs of the dormers are not of a style reflective of the existing building or the surrounding area. They would also not be constructed of materials matching the existing roof. Whilst the dormers facing [address] align with windows on the existing elevation of the property below, they would all be detrimentally wider, the one nearest the rear of the property significantly so. The proposed window styles are also inconsistent with the simpler style of windows on the elevation below. Therefore, the dormers would be incongruous and result in harm due to not reflecting the style and architecture of the property’s fenestration or the surrounding area.

Whilst the retained chimney would screen views of the dormers from [address] to a degree, the dormers would still harm the balance of the symmetry of the wider building. The adverse impact to the roofscape would also be visible from the adjacent [address] which is a well-used pedestrian route, albeit I note that the blind dormer would be less obtrusive given that there would only be limited views of it from [address].

The appellants have highlighted that the Council has previously approved a proposal which included dormer windows on the [address] and [address] elevations of the building. However, this appears to have been some time ago and the permission has expired. I also do not know why the proposal was allowed, or the details of the planning policies that were in place at the time. I have determined this appeal against the current up-to-date local and national planning policies.

The appellants have also referred to a planning permission for a rear dormer at another property and the use of curved dormers, similar to those in the proposal, on the front and rear of a separate property within a Conservation Area. However, I am not aware of the particular circumstances in either of these cases and in any event I must consider the appeal scheme on its own merits.

The proposal also includes for the removal of an existing chimney on the ridge line of the roof. I consider that the removal of this prominent and attractive feature which is visible from surrounding streets would also detrimentally impact the visual interest of the roofscape of the building. Therefore, its loss, which is part of the overall proposals for the roof alterations, would harm the character and appearance of the building and the locality.

Overall, the scale, design and location of the proposed dormers and the removal of the chimney would negatively impact the roofscape of the property. Consequently, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area.

The Council notes that the building originally forming the pair of semi-detached houses, which includes the appeal site, is identified as part of a ‘positive historic building’ in its [name] (2016). Therefore, I consider that the appeal dwelling is part of a non-designated

The Framework advises at paragraph 194 that applicants should be required to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by development and the potential impact of the proposal on the significance. Whilst the proposal would affect the character and appearance of the non-designated heritage asset no such assessment is before me. As a result, there is insufficient evidence for me to reach a conclusion on the effect of the proposal on the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.

I conclude that the proposal would lead to harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and area. Whilst the proposal would affect a non-designated heritage asset, in the absence of an assessment of significance I am unable to consider any conflict between the proposal and the asset’s conservation.

Consequently, the proposal would fail to comply with Policies P10, P11, and P12 of the [name] (as amended by the [name]) (2019), Policy BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006), Policy HDG1 and the principles set out in the [name] (2012), and the principles of the [name] (2016). These policies taken collectively require the protection of the character and appearance of a locality through high quality design that respects local design features, and the protection and enhancement of historic assets and townscapes. The proposal is also contrary to the Framework which, amongst other things, seeks to secure high quality design in relation to new development.

The appellants have included details of a previous appeal decision covering 2 appeals (Refs: APP/N4720/D/20/3264630 and APP/N4720/D/21/3267096). Both appeals sought prior approval for the enlargement of the property through the construction of additional storeys. However, I note that the main issues in these cases were unrelated to the character and appearance of the existing building and area, and therefore the reasons for the dismissals are materially different to the issues in this case.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.