Appeal 3345409

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site occupies a prominent position at end of [address], where [address] meets Peasehill Park. The street scene features a mix of properties including two-storey houses and bungalows of varied size and design, some of which have been extended. The appeal site features a detached bungalow which displays a pleasing symmetry to its front elevation and consistency in terms of its hipped roof forms which give the bungalow a well-balanced, high-quality aesthetic. The bungalow is setback from the street and benefits from a generous plot with a large rear garden. There are trees and hedges along the boundaries and a large tree within the front garden area. As a result of all these factors, ‘Tolcan’ provides a positive focal point at the end of [address].

Due to their ridges being set only marginally below the eaves of the first floor and their hipped roof design, the front projections would jar with the gabled forms of the main roof. They would read as remnants of the existing dwelling rather than being well integrated into the design of the extended dwelling and this would give the development an incoherent appearance. Consequently, the lack of continuity in design does not respect the form of the existing dwelling, nor does it create a create a visually appealing new composition, and this would provide a poor focal point at the end of [address].

Moreover, other than matching materials, the rear elevation would be of a different style to the front. The shallow pitch and considerable width of the proposed rear gable would appear contrived as a response to spanning the broad width of the existing bungalow’s footprint. The ridge of the side gables would sit level with that of the rear gable creating an unappealing bulky aesthetic. The variety of window fenestration sizes and alignments on the rear elevation would appear disorderly. In combination these factors would compound the inconsistencies in the design approach.

The rear elevation would be noticeable from a number of neighbouring properties. In any event, the location of the rear elevation away from the street does not overcome my overall design concerns and I do not consider that any lack of public visibility obviates the needs to achieve good design. Indeed, paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the creation of high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.

The proposal would therefore have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and on the surrounding area. The proposal would conflict with Policy P10 (Design) of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended 2019) and Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) which require amongst other things that the size, scale, design and layout of the development is appropriate to its context, protects the visual amenity of the area through high quality design and that alterations and extensions respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original dwelling.

For the same reasons, the proposal would also conflict with the guidance within Policy HDG1 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which requires that extensions and alterations respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and locality.

I am aware that planning permission was granted for ‘Part single storey, part two storey extensions, raise in roof height forming two storey dwelling with rooms in roof space’ at the site in 2020 (application ref 20/01498/FU). This permission was not implemented and has since lapsed; hence it does not constitute a fallback position. Furthermore, even if the development plan policies have not changed since that particular application was approved by the Council, from what I have seen the proposed front and rear elevations in that instance were of a more holistic design. Therefore, the appeal scheme before me is not directly comparable, and the planning history of the site does not alter my conclusion in respect of the harm identified under the main issue.

The appellant suggests that the current dwelling has a leaking roof and that the layout is not ideal for the family. It is also indicated that the extended dwelling would be more energy efficient as it would be better insulated and would incorporate renewable energy features. However, there is nothing before me to suggest that these matters could only be addressed and provided through the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed since it would conflict with the development plan.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.