Appeal 3288376

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[address] is predominantly characterised by two-storey semi-detached dwellings. There is some variation in dwelling styles on the road. However, even where extensions have taken place, individual pairs of semis more often retain their general symmetry with their original form clearly legible. This is the case for the appeal dwelling and the attached semi-detached dwelling at No [address] which have both previously been extended to the front and side. The extensions at No 2 include a first-floor side element which is set well back from the original front elevation. As a result, the dwellings retain an overriding cohesive appearance which positively contributes to the street scene.

The width of the first-floor side extension would be less than two-thirds of the main house and its ridge would be set down from the main roofline. The extension would also incorporate matching materials and the front window proportions would be similar to others on the front elevation. Therefore, the proposal would accord with some of the guidance in the Leeds City Council Householder Design Guide (2012) (the HDG).

However, the development would only be marginally set back from the first-floor front elevation of the host dwelling. In this regard it would fall significantly short of the 2.0 metre (m) requirement in the HDG. This would mean that when facing the site at street level, the proposal would be unduly prominent and would be seen to elongate the first-floor front elevation. This would unacceptably reduce legibility of the dwelling’s original form. It would also unbalance the appearance of the pair of semis that the appeal dwelling forms part of.

I acknowledge that the requirement for a 2.0m set-back in the HDG is guidance and a degree of flexibility can be applied. However, the first-floor side extensions on the similar semi-detached dwellings at Nos 2 and [address] to the HDG requirement and are therefore not comparable to the appeal proposal.

I accept that the extensions to the dwellings referred to by the appellant as Nos 5 and 23 both fall well short of the HDG set-back requirement. However, the evidence before me suggests No 5 was not built in accordance with the approved plans which had proposed a greater set-back. The dwelling at No 23 is set further away from the street frontage on [address] than the appeal dwelling, helping to reduce the prominence of that particular extension. In any case, these examples do not persuade me that the specific harm that would result to the appearance of the appeal dwelling and the cohesiveness of the wider street scene would be justified in this instance.

I conclude, the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with the design and context requirements of Policy P10 (Design) of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended) (2019) (the CS), Policy H4 (Development outside the Conservation Area) of the Bramham Cum Oglethorpe Neighbourhood Development Plan (made 2019) and Saved Policy BD6 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan Volume 1: [name] (Review 2006) (the UDP). For the same reasons, it would also conflict with the overall objectives of Policy HDG1 (Design and appearance) of the HDG.

Policy GP5, which is referred to in the Council’s decision notice, is not amongst the saved policies listed in the directions provided by the Council. Even so, this does not diminish the conflict with the other policies of the development plan identified above.

Even if the proposal is the only way to provide a first-floor side extension with a functional internal layout, this does not justify the harm identified under the

The proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.