Appeal 3329924

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 situated within an established residential area, at the corner of [address] with [address]. It comprises one half of a pair of two-storey, semi-detached houses with a painted render finish. The dwelling faces towards [address] and together with its adjoining neighbour, has been subjected to a hip-to-gable alteration with a large box dormer at the rear. The site boundaries are formed by a low wall to the front, hedge to the side, and timber fence at the rear.

The houses in this part of [address] are varied in age, style, and materials, while the wider surrounding area, particularly on the south side of [address], contains mainly traditional houses constructed in brick with pitched slate roofs. A number of nearby properties have been altered and extended over time, but these generally take their cue from the host dwellings in terms of design and materials, and therefore integrate unobtrusively with the established built form.

The appellant has taken a contemporary design approach to the proposed extension. I am not fundamentally opposed to the principle of such an approach at this site. However, I am not convinced that it has been successfully achieved in this case. Whilst the extension would be subservient in terms of its height and set back from the front elevation, its boxy, flat-roofed form, combined with an incoherent pattern of fenestration and the awkward manner in which it would wrap around the rear of the building, would result in a visually jarring and discordant addition. The use of contrasting materials would only add to its overall conspicuousness. As such, the proposal would neither respect, nor compliment the host building. I am mindful that the dwelling already has a large boxy addition on its roof, but this does not justify further insensitive alterations and the cumulative degradation of the character and appearance of the dwelling and street scene.

It has been suggested by the appellant that the extension would be obscured from view by the existing boundary treatment, particularly the boundary hedge. While that may be the case currently, there is no guarantee that the hedge would be maintained at the current height. The hedge could also die or be removed for other reasons, and an alternative form of enclosure would most likely not be capable of screening the 3.3 metre high extension. In any event, new development should be well designed and contribute positively to an area, not hidden because it is poor.

The Council has also raised a concern in relation to the return building line along [address]. However, whilst the distinctive group comprising of 1, 3, and [address] has a uniform front building line, that is not the case for the wider street scene context where most properties are located side-on to [address] and the gaps between the buildings and the street varies considerably, as clearly shown in the appellant’s Statement. In this specific site context, I am satisfied that the proposed single-storey extension would not harmfully prejudice any significant building line consideration.

Nonetheless, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and its immediate surroundings for other reasons identified above. Thus, the proposal conflicts with Policies P10 and P12 of the [name] ([name] 2019); [name] GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006); and Policy HDG1 of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which collectively seek to secure high quality design and ensure that alterations and extensions respect the form, proportions and character and appearance of the original building and the locality. It is also contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to achieving well designed places.

The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, and is therefore in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.