Appeal 3287636

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is in a residential area where there is a general mix of semi-detached bungalows and two storey properties. The majority of properties face and follow the estate roads, have modest garden/drive frontages and have pitched roofs. The pairs of semi-detached properties are typically separated by drives. There are limited examples of front dormers to bungalow properties within this estate.

Most of the properties along [address], including the appeal property, are semi-detached bungalows which are similar in form and layout. The properties have a gradual level change to allow them to follow the ground profile but overall, the street scene and roof lines are quite consistent and uniform in appearance. There are some examples of properties with front dormers along this road which break up this consistent appearance, but these are very limited. The appeal property sits approximately mid-way along [address], near [address]. It has a rear dormer extension, gardens to the front and rear with a driveway leading to a detached garage.

The proposal would add a front box dormer, approximately 6m in width by 3m in depth by 1.7m in height. The dormer would have two windows and be cladded to match the existing roof tiles.

The proposal would affect a large part of the host property’s roof and create an out of scale and dominating feature which would be highly visible from the immediate surroundings. It would break up the uniform appearance within the street scene and also visually unbalance the semi-detached pair of dwellings as the adjoining property has no front dormer. Overall, it would not be in keeping with the character of this area and it would not reflect the identity of the local surroundings or reinforce local distinctiveness.

While there are examples of front dormers within the estate and on [address], on my site visit I found that these were uncommon. The ones that are evident visually affect the harmony to the street scene by creating interruptions in its uniform appearance. Furthermore, from the evidence provided, some of these have no planning history, while others were built prior to the current guidance and policies. One front dormer was permitted in 2013, but this was only allowed to balance an existing front dormer on the adjoining semi-detached property. On the above basis, I have only given limited weight to these in my decision.

In conclusion, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal fails to accord with the aims of Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019), saved Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), HDG1 of the [name] Planning Document (2012) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These seek to ensure, amongst other matters, that development achieves a good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function and respects the character and quality of surrounding buildings.

For the above reasons, having regard to the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework and all other relevant considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.