Appeal 3304617

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is an extended detached house within a residential estate. The neighbouring dwellings are predominantly detached and vary in style. The appeal dwelling has a gable roof with gable ends to the side elevations, and some neighbouring properties feature a rotated design with gable ends to the front and rear. The site lies on a prominent corner of [address] and [name].

The proposals would extend further outwards than the existing porch and across a wider portion of the front elevation, encompassing the existing shallow bay window up to the set-back edge of the two-storey side extension. The proposed extension would not project beyond the corresponding building line of the adjacent dwellings, and the facing materials and roof design would largely reflect those of the existing dwelling.

However, its scale in terms of width and depth, and its design, including the ground floor window, would not respect the appearance of the host property. The result would be an unduly dominant addition that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. [name] note the appellant’s comments include reference to an alternative design option featuring a shallow bay window, I have not been provided a copy of any alternative proposals. I have therefore given this matter no weight in my

Whilst the hedgerow to the property boundary would reduce the visual impact of the proposal from [name], it would be visible via the driveway opening on [name]. In any event, the hedgerow could be removed at any time should the appellants or future occupiers choose, so could not be relied on to reduce the visual impact of the proposal indefinitely.

As part of my site visit, I viewed the nearby examples cited by the appellant at 10 [name], [address] and 60 [name]. However, the design of these dwellings and the individual characteristics of the sites were notably different from the appeal subject. As such, they provided no reasons to alter my previous findings.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposals would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, which would conflict with the aims of [name] GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review

Volume 1: [name], and Policies P10 and P12 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy (as amended by the [name] 2019), which together require developments to provide good design that is appropriate to the location, to ensure alterations and extensions respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building, and require developments to conserve and enhance the distinctiveness of townscapes and landscapes. There is also conflict with the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance, which has similar aims.

The proposed development fails to accord with the policies of the Development Plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the above reasons, and taking account of all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.