Appeal 3368283

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that referenced in the application form. I note that the appellant also uses this on the appeal submission, I have adopted the revised description of development as this more accurately describes the development.

An amended plan has been submitted with the appeal which redesigns the development. The Council and third parties have not had the opportunity to comment on the plan during this appeal. I am therefore not convinced that parties would not be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal taking into account the amended plans. I have based my decision on the plan submitted to Council during the application process: [name]: LS14-101.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property; and (ii) the living conditions of occupants of No’s 15 and [address].

The appeal site is a mid-terraced property within a predominantly residential area. There is a difference in levels between the floor level of the property and the rear garden, the rear garden lower. The proposed development would be screened to a degree due to its location at the rear of the property and existing boundary enclosures. Nevertheless, the increased height of the boundary treatment along the shared boundaries with No’s 15 and [address] would be obvious.

The scale of the proposed development would dominate the rear elevation of the host property and modest sized garden. The projection of the proposed decking at a height of 1.2 above the garden level, along with the proposed stairs, balustrade and screening would be an imposing structure incongruous to the host property.

I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the host property. With regard to the main issue relating to character and appearance there is conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019), Leeds Local Plan (the [name]) and Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) (the UDP) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of good design and appropriate to character of the area.

There is conflict with Policy HDG1 of the Leeds City Council, [name], Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (the SPD) which seeks to ensure development respects the main dwelling and locality.

There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.

A solid fence (1.1m in height) with decorative screening on top (0.6m excluding the decorative scallop top) combined with the height of the deck platform (1.2m) would be located along the shared boundaries with No’s 15 and [address]. The substantial scale of the overall structure would be an overbearing feature to the occupants of neighbouring properties.

Whilst the boundary treatment would mitigate overlooking to a degree the screening would not extend the full extent of the raised decking as such direct overlooking of the private rear gardens of No. 15 and 19 would ensue. Overlooking occurs at present between properties due to external steps located to the rear of the properties, however a large raised platform would exacerbate this.

I find that the development would harm the living conditions of occupants of No’s 15 and [address]. With regard to the main issue relating to living conditions there is conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] and Policies GP5 and BD6 of the UDP which amongst other things seek to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

There is conflict with the SPD which seeks to ensure development protects the amenity of neighbours. The proposed development conflicts with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users.

I observed during my site visit that a neighbouring property has a similar raised deck to the rear of the property I have no details relating to the planning history of that development. I therefore give this limited weight.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.