Appeal 3294491

The appeal is dismissed.

I have determined the appeal based on the amended plans that the Council used to make its decision.

During my site visit I was also able to view the site from the neighbouring gardens of 1 and [address].

The main issues are the effect of the development on i) the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 and [address] with particular regard to matters of dominance, privacy, and overshadowing; and ii) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow fronting onto [address]. It is located close to the southern boundary with [address] and has a shallow rear garden which backs onto the rear garden of [address]. The proposal would add two additional floors of accommodation to the bungalow, but the upper floor accommodation would be contained within the roof space.

Even at its existing single-storey height, the hipped roof of the bungalow rises significantly above the southern boundary wall and has an imposing presence when experienced from the rear conservatory and main garden area of [address]. According to the Council’s figures, the separation distance to the conservatory is approximately 7.5 metres, which is already substantially less than the 12 metres recommended in the Council’s adopted ‘Householder Design Guide’ Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (the SPD). Consequently, whilst the proposal would not bring development any closer to [address], the increase in the height of the gable wall and roof would undoubtedly appear oppressive and overbearing when viewed from the neighbour’s conservatory and garden, to the severe detriment of their living conditions.

In relation to [address], I note that the rear dormer windows have been removed from the scheme, and that obscure glazing is now indicated to the dressing room and bathroom windows in the rear elevation. Nonetheless, there would remain an unobscured bedroom window, which would directly overlook the bottom part of No 3’s garden at close quarters. I saw that this area contains a patio for outdoor sitting and is not closely overlooked by any neighbouring property at present. As a result, the level of privacy that the neighbours currently experience in this important part of their garden would be severely diminished. Furthermore, due to its height, extent, and the shallow depth of the appeal property’s rear garden, the development would have a noticeable enclosing effect along the majority of the western side of No 3’s garden. It would also likely cause some additional late afternoon overshadowing of this garden. In these regards, the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 would be unacceptably harmed.

The effect on [address] did not feature in the Council’s refusal reasons, and based on my own observations, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment.

I conclude, on this issue, that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 and [address] for reasons including overdominance, loss of privacy, and overshadowing. This is contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended 2019) (the CS), saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (the UDP), and Policy HDG2 of the SPD, in so far as they seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. It is also contrary to paragraph 130(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires development to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

[address] is a wide distributor road containing a mix of different housing, some commercial premises, and schools.

The proposal would fundamentally alter the form and character of the dwelling from an inconspicuous bungalow to a large two-storey dwelling. Even so, the existing bungalow makes a neutral contribution to the street scene, and I note that the Council does not have any in-principle objection to its upward extension from a visual perspective. The altered dwelling would not be notably out of scale with other development along [address] and would maintain adequate visual separation to the neighbouring properties to avoid appearing cramped in the street scene. Although it would have a more contemporary appearance, it would incorporate common design features of the area such as projecting gable peaks, and there is enough variety along [address] to accommodate a range of design treatments without necessarily detracting from the character of the area.

I therefore conclude, on this issue, that the development would not unacceptably harm the character or appearance of the area. In this regard, the proposal complies with the design requirements of CS Policy P10, saved [name] GP5 and BD6, and SPD Policy HDG1. It also complies with the design requirements of paragraph 130 (a-d) of the Framework.

The development would provide enlarged accommodation within the property and improve its condition generally without causing harm to the character or appearance of the area. Nevertheless, I have found significant harm in relation to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations that indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.