Appeal 3314210

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached house located prominently at the corner of [address] with [address]. The houses within this modern planned residential estate are similarly constructed in a traditional style and materials. This gives the development as a whole a high degree of visual cohesiveness and adds positively to local distinctiveness.

The proposed side extension would be constructed on land belonging to the host property, and would not project any closer to the road than the flank elevation of [address] to the north. Nonetheless, it would still be a highly conspicuous element in the street scene and would be seen to intrude unduly into an area which currently contributes to a sense of openness at the entrance to [address]. Moreover, its shallow roof pitch would not reflect the steeply pitched roof of the host building and would give the extension a squat appearance that is firmly at odds with the existing form and proportions of the building. The use of matching materials would do little to mitigate the visual impact of the proposal.

Thus, despite representing a relatively modest addition, I find that the design and siting of the extension would have a pronounced and entirely unsatisfactory effect upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene.

The appellant refers to an extension that was approved at [address], within the same estate. However, [address] is not a corner property and benefits from partial screening by roadside vegetation. There are also material differences in where the extension is sited on the dwelling. The schemes are not therefore directly comparable, and, in any event, each case must be considered on its individual merits.

I have noted the reasons behind the proposal and recognise the benefits it would bring to the occupants, including through provision of a dedicated office space and freeing up bedrooms in the process. Even so, this is not justification for the harm that would be caused.

In conclusion, I find that the development would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (amended 2019); saved Policies BD6 and GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006); and the Council’s ‘Householder Design Guide’ Supplementary Planning Document (2012). Together, these seek to ensure that development is of good design, which respects the scale, form, proportions, and character of the original building and wider locality. The proposal is also contrary to section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to achieving well designed places.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other material considerations, including the appellant’s personal circumstances, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.