Appeal 3358926

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for: Removal of existing garage. Single storey side / rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/06400/FU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Location Plan (dated 04-Nov-2024); and Planning Drawing (2446-01).

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The decision notice amended the wording of the description of development and included reference to ‘extending the driveway making the garden smaller to the front.’ The appellant has not provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the planning application form.

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

No [site address] (No 21) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, which has an existing detached garage to the side, set back from [address] behind the rear elevation of its host. It is proposed to demolish this and construct a single storey side and rear extension with a gable facing the road.

No [address] of semi-detached dwellings on one side of [address] which have a generally uniform form and design, including two-storey bay windows and deep recessed front doors with a prominent stone surround. The roof of No 21 has been changed from its original hip to a gable, but there nonetheless remains a degree of symmetry with its attached neighbour, particularly at ground floor.

The proposed side extension has been well offset from the front elevation of its host, designed with a simple pitched roof which would run front to back such that its eaves would sit below the existing landing window on the flank elevation. Its form would reflect the gabled roof of No 21, and its set back and single-storey height, with low eaves, means that it would appear a sympathetic, proportionate addition. Although there would be some degree of loss of the ground floor symmetry, the proposed extension would not noticeably unbalance the composition of the semi-detached pair.

The surrounding area is varied, characterised by mid [postcode] detached or semi-detached dwellings, typically constructed in redbrick or finished in a render, with either a hipped or pitched roof form with some facing gables. I observed that numerous dwellings along [address] have been altered or extended and many benefit from single-storey side or garage extensions which include pitched, flat, part hipped and gabled roof designs. Set back from the front elevation, the proposed extension would only be visible from the very short section of [address] closest to No 21, and its modest scale means that, even when viewed in close proximity, it would not appear dominant or visually intrusive. Further, the proposed extension would assimilate well with the varied forms and designs of extensions and alterations seen in the row of semi-detached dwellings, and the wider locality.

The proposed side extension would be offset from the front elevation of No 21 by over 2.5m with a second door, giving access to a boot room, located centrally within the gable. Although the existing front door is recessed, this offset would ensure that the two doors would remain visually distinct and separate. The proposed door would appear secondary rather than competing with the original opening of the dwelling, and I observed other examples of such an arrangement along [address]. Consequently, I find no conflict with the guidance in Policy HDG1 of the Council’s ‘Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012)’ that all extensions should respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and locality paying particular attention to roof form and architectural features.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area. It would accord with Policy P10 of the Leeds

(2019) and saved policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). Together, these require detailed planning considerations to be resolved, good design and extensions which respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building and the character of the wider locality.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary for reasons of certainty. To ensure the development successfully integrates with the character and appearance of the area, a condition requiring the use of matching materials is also necessary.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.