Appeal 6002553

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to development that has already taken place. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and my observations on site.

The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address], [site address] and Woodhouse Moor Conservation Area.

The site lies within the [address], [site address] and Woodhouse Moor Conservation Area (CA). So far as it relates to this appeal, the CA draws some of its essential character and significance from the rhythm, architecture and materials of the traditional 19th century terraced housing that defines much of the historic townscape. The Victorian terraced building containing the appeal property is typical of this character, and as such contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a designated heritage asset.

In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I am required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

While the wider area contains some large dormer additions, the part of the terrace where the appeal property sits has remained relatively intact at roof level. The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2012) highlights the erosion of coherent roofscapes caused by the addition of modern dormers, identifying such alterations as harmful where they disrupt established proportions and historic character.

The nearest dormers towards the eastern end of the terrace are narrow in width and visually recessive. They appear as modest additions which respect the form, materials and hierarchy of the host building. By contrast, the front and rear dormers subject of this appeal are broad, squat, flat roof structures. Although they sit below the ridge and above the eaves, their horizontal emphasis does not relate well to the vertical order and hierarchy of the existing openings on the host building. The white-clad cheeks further accentuate their presence and introduce a stark contrast to the predominant dark roof materials. Despite the height of adjoining buildings and boundary walls, both dormers are clearly visible from street level where they read as conspicuous and incongruous additions that interrupt the legibility of the terrace as a coherent historic group.

The Council’s Householder Design Guide (2012) states that dormers should be small, subordinate features set well within the roof plane, with materials that match the host roof. It advises that inappropriate cladding and box-like forms can be harmful, particularly in prominent locations. The appeal dormers, by virtue of their width, box-like design, and materials, do not comply with this guidance.

The appellant refers to the presence of other large dormers in the wider context to justify the appeal scheme. They further contend that the appeal dormers are of modest scale and comparable to those approved elsewhere. However, the examples cited are not located within this part of the terrace and are not of a scale or frequency that would lead me to regard them as forming part of the distinctive character of the street scene and CA as a whole. In any event, whether other developments elsewhere gained planning permission does not alter the duty to consider the effect of this specific proposal on this particular part of the CA. Their presence does not therefore provide a sound basis for introducing further unsympathetic box-style dormers, adding to the incremental erosion of the significance of the CA.

The harm to the significance of the CA can be classed as less than substantial, falling towards the lower end of that scale. Nevertheless, any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that this harm be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

The appellant refers to improved internal head height and natural light, repairs to parts of the roof, and short-term economic activity during construction. [name] acknowledge these matters, the functional benefits to the occupiers are mostly private in nature; the roof repairs would ordinarily be expected maintenance; and the temporary economic activity generated during construction is limited in scale and duration. These considerations are therefore not of a nature or magnitude sufficient to outweigh the identified heritage harm. Consequently, the appeal scheme conflicts with the requirements of the Framework when read as a whole.

Therefore, in line with my duties under Section 72(1), I conclude that the development causes harm to the significance of the CA and fails to preserve or enhance its character or appearance. It conflicts with Policies P10 and P11 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (amended 2019); saved Policies N19, BD6 and GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), and parts 12 and 16 of the Framework. Collectively, these require high-quality design that conserves or enhances the historic environment and respects local character and distinctiveness.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and with national heritage protection policies when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.