Appeal 6003592

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was submitted as a householder application for planning permission for works or extension to a dwelling. Whilst the appeal was started under a different procedure, based on the proposed development it is suitable for determination under the householder appeal procedure. The main parties have been notified of this change and have had the opportunity to comment. The Council’s notification of the appeal has also been undertaken having regard to the householder appeal procedure. I am satisfied that no parties have been prejudiced, therefore I have determined the appeal accordingly on this basis.

The proposed development includes works that do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal, nor does the Council identify any conflict with the development plan in relation to these elements. From the evidence before me and my site visit, I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the focus of my assessment is the proposed greenhouse and glass balustrade referred to on the Council’s decision notice.

The appellants have submitted a revised plan with the appeal that their statement sets out is to show levels and simplified balustrade. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England (2026) is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and there are no provisions for amendments to be submitted. It is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage.

The revised plan appears to amount to a substantial change to the appearance of the balustrade. In any event, accepting the revision under either appeal procedure could deprive those who were entitled to be consulted of the opportunity to make any representations as part of an appeal, which, given the matters that have been raised, they may have wished to make. For this reason, I will not accept the amended plan.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed greenhouse and glass balustrade on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached property in a predominantly residential area, occupying a prominent corner position at [address] and [address]. It has modest areas of external amenity space to the front and side with a detached double garage and hardstanding to the rear. The host property sits at a significantly higher level than nearby dwellings fronting [address]. Its elevated position increases its visual prominence, particularly in views around the junction of [address] and [address]. [address] also rises further beyond the host property, and it is also highly visible in views from this higher level.

The host property largely retains its original [name] design features, including the stepped parapet and detailing above the windows and entrance to the front elevation. It has been altered with a two-storey side extension reflecting the original design. While some semi-detached pairs on [address] and [address] appear to have been altered with pitched roofs and dormer windows, the adjacent properties on [address] and those to the rear on [address] share similar flat roofed [name] characteristics. Aside from small sloping roof projections providing access to the roof level, chimneys and antennas, there did not appear to be any notable additions to these flat roofs. Despite the side extension to the host property and some differences in appearance, the properties form a distinctive and cohesive group compared with others in the surrounding area that have pitched or hipped roofs, and they make a positive contribution to local character.

The development proposes the construction of a greenhouse to part of the original roof of the host property. This would comprise a monopitch roof design featuring a powder coated aluminium frame with glazed panels. The greenhouse would be a larger and bulkier addition to the roof in comparison to the existing access point to the roof level that would be enclosed. Whilst it would be of lightweight construction, due to its scale and siting to the roof, it would appear as a highly prominent and incongruous addition that would detract from the character and appearance of the property. Views of the proposed greenhouse would be more limited from street level closest to the host property. However, due to its elevated corner position, the proposed greenhouse would be a notable addition to the roof in views from the surrounding area, particularly along the length of [address] and parts of [address], [address] and [address]. This would add to the harmful visual impact of the proposed development in the surrounding area.

The glass balustrade would be set behind the parapet around the outer perimeter of the roof edge of the host property. The submitted plan indicates parts of it would be stepped to follow the parapet of the main roof of the property and it would appear to extend higher above the lower parapet level of the side extension. This would be a predominantly glazed feature with the submitted plan indicating connecting posts between the glass panels. Despite the glazing and the modest height above the parapet, this element would also introduce a discordant feature at a high level close to the edge of the host property. Given the site’s prominent and elevated position, the balustrade would be visible and would detract from the character and appearance of the host property in views from the surrounding area.

Due to their siting, scale and appearance, the proposed greenhouse and balustrade would therefore appear as prominent and incongruous additions to the host property. Such development is not typical of this or other similar properties in the surrounding area, and the proposed development would appear at odds with the design of the property and the locally distinctive group. The adverse visual impact would be exacerbated by the elevated position at roof level and the host property’s highly prominent corner position. The proposed development would therefore significantly detract from the established character and appearance of the host property and the group in which it sits.

I conclude that the proposed development would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies P10 and P12 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) Leeds Local Plan (September 2019) and Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to deliver high quality design, respect and enhance streets and buildings according to the local distinctiveness of the place, conserve and enhance the character and quality of townscapes, and respect the form of the original building.

I have had regard to the appellants’ aims for the provision of enhanced, useable and safe outdoor amenity space at roof level, and taking into account the existing amenity space that is available. I also acknowledge the stated environmental, sustainability and biodiversity benefits of the proposed development. However, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development is the only way to achieve these aims. In any event, the modest benefits of the development do not outweigh the harm I have identified or alter my conclusion on the main issue.

The appellants’ Design and [name] makes reference to other development within Leeds and London as examples of roof gardens. Full details of these are not before me, although the Council’s comments on the Leeds example indicate that is a materially different site context and form of development. I am therefore unable to determine if they are directly comparable or relevant to the proposed development before me. However, I have assessed the development on its merits in this specific location, and these do not justify the harm in this instance.

Whilst the proposed development has been found to be acceptable in terms of the living conditions of neighbouring residents, this is a neutral matter and does not weigh in favour of the development.

I note the appellants’ comments regarding the Council’s pre-application advice. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under this planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposed development.

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, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR