Appeal 3356634

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised. I am satisfied there are no changes of any consequence for the main issues in this appeal.

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located in a residential area where properties are typically set back on their plots, surrounded by modest gardens and with parking areas to the front or side. Properties in the area are predominantly of a similar style and period except for Nos 10, 11 and [address] which are accessed from a private drive at the end of [address]. This group of properties is a more recent phase of development that use a different palette of materials and design.

[address] is laid out on rising ground from the junction with [address]. The appeal property occupies an elevated and prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The front elevation faces onto [address] and the side elevation faces onto [address], with parking and a garage to the rear accessed from [address]. The front and side garden spaces are laid to lawn and are open to the footway and road in keeping with several other properties in the area.

The front elevation of the appeal property aligns with the front elevations of Nos 6, 8 and [address]. These 4 properties are of similar design and form a distinct group along a building line that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Nos 6 and 8 are located to one side of the junction with [address] mirroring the appeal property and No 12 to the other side. As such, the 4 dwellings also bracket the entrance to [address]. While the appearance of No 8 has been altered by the addition of a single-storey side extension, the original symmetrical arrangement of the 4 properties either side of the entrance to [address] remains largely intact and a prominent element of the street scene. The predominantly open frontages and lack of screening vegetation to the front of these 4 properties increases their prominence and balanced arrangement when seen from [address] and [address].

The side elevation of the appeal property, and front of the existing garage to the rear, align with the front elevations of Nos 1, 3, 5, 7 and [address], which form another distinct group of detached dwellings of similar design. As such, the appeal property is part of a second clearly defined building line that also contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would extend the host property to the front and side. The projection to the front would be at ground floor only, while the extension to the side would be two storeys in height and would occupy much of the open space within which the property is experienced. The proposed extension to the front elevation of the appeal property would disrupt the distinct building line along [address]. Furthermore, the proposed alterations to the appearance of the appeal property would harm the complementary and balanced arrangement of dwellings either side of the junction with [address]. This would have a significant and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is close enough to No [address] that its side elevation forms a continuous building line with that property’s front elevation. Based on my site visit I do not find this to be the case. Moreover, the space separating the 2 houses is currently occupied by the garage to the appeal property, which is proposed to be demolished. As described above, the front elevation of the garage, along with the side elevation of the appeal property, forms part of the building line on [address]. Therefore, both the proposed two-storey side extension and demolition of the existing garage would disrupt and erode, respectively, the established building line and have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant suggests that, as the proposed side extension is set back from the front elevation of the host property, an appearance of openness would be retained. However, this would not preserve the openness to both sides of the appeal property and, at best, would only help to maintain the building line along [address].

The appellant also suggests that the proposed development would have the effect of ‘bookending’ the street scene along [address] when seen in conjunction with No 11. As mentioned above, No 11 is from a more recent phase of development and is different from other houses along that side of the street, including the appeal property as existing or as proposed. The distance between the appeal property and No 11 is such that the 2 properties are not perceived as a pair, more so, given the difference in design and materials used. The appellant also argues that the effect of the proposed side extension on the building line along [address] could reflect the stepped pattern of development on the opposite side of the street. However, that stepped alignment is not the context within which the appeal property was designed or is experienced.

Taking all the above into account, I conclude that the proposed development would result in a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Hence, it would conflict with Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan, 2006, and Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy, 2019, which seek, among other things, that extensions should respect the scale and form of the original building and that development should respect the character and quality of surrounding buildings, streets and spaces.

The appellant has pointed to examples of dwellings within the vicinity that have been altered or extended so that they depart from or extend beyond an identifiable building line. In the case of [address], the dwelling is similarly located on a corner plot that terminates a row of houses running along that street. Unlike the appeal site it is not mirrored by a similar dwelling on the other side of the entrance to [address]. The original two-storey end gable of No 182 would have aligned with the single-storey front elevation of [address]. This difference in height and great separation between the 2 would have resulted in a less clearly defined building line. Given these differences I find the extension to No 182 is not directly comparable with the appeal.

The example of [address], noted above, differs appreciably in scale being only a single-storey extension. As such, the original building lines along both [address] and [address] are retained at first floor level. With regard to the example of [address], the original end gable elevation does not appear to have formed part of building line along [address]. Also, the extension to No 1 is stepped back from the front elevation and therefore does not disrupt the building line seen along [address]. Lastly, I have addressed the differences between the appeal development and [address] above.

The appellant expresses the opinion that the Council has taken a flexible approach to the application of policies within the development plan. Notwithstanding the above, the issue of whether the policies were correctly applied at the time of the decision being taken is not determinative to this appeal. I must determine the current appeal against relevant policies and based on its individual circumstances and merits, and I have found that the proposals would result in an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area.

As such, I find the examples presented to me are not directly comparable to or occur within the same context as the appeal development before me. Accordingly, I have afforded these examples limited weight that does not outweigh the harm I have found.

I note the appellant’s reference to the Framework with regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, paragraph 131 of the Framework confirms that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, and the appeal proposal falls short in this respect.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.