Appeal 6004293

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the pair of semi-detached houses of which it forms part, and the local area, including trees.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house that occupies a good-sized plot within a predominantly residential area. It forms part of a broadly matching pair, which show a general symmetry in their design when seen at the front. This arrangement, coupled with the regular spacing between buildings, is a feature of properties along Hollin Park Mount in the vicinity of the site and a defining characteristic of the local area.

The proposal includes a 2-storey side extension that would reflect the style of the existing house with a set back from the main front wall. This arrangement, and the width of new addition and size of gap between the finished dwelling and the site’s boundary would comply with the advice in the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The pattern of windows and external materials would also match those of the existing house.

Nevertheless, the appeal scheme would result in a significantly larger property with an extended 2-storey front elevation. By matching the ridge height of the host dwelling, the proposal would result in a long continuous roof line facing the road. This arrangement would visually accentuate the considerable scale and mass of the finished dwelling in the local street scene.

When viewed from the road, the new extension would ‘read’ as a continuation of the main roof form rather than as a subordinate addition even with a set back from the principal elevation. By introducing additional built form to one side of the dwelling, the appeal scheme would disrupt the symmetry between No 41 and its attached counterpart by unbalancing their front elevations. As a result, a key characteristic of the pair and of properties in the wider street scene would be unduly eroded, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the local area.

I recognise that the plot is relatively wide. However, the harm identified arises from the scale, height and integrated roof form of the new extension, rather than from any perceived sense of cramped development. The space left to the side of the site would not mitigate the visual impact of the proposal or its effect on the balance of the pair. I also note the appellant’s view that a forced "set down" would disrupt the symmetrical shape of the roof, resulting in a disjointed addition. However, achieving subordination is a key design objective. The approach taken would fail to achieve this, resulting in an unsympathetic and obtrusive addition that would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the pair and the street scene.

The Council also raises concern that the proposal might adversely affect some trees just beyond the boundary of the site, which are visible from the road. These trees make a positive contribution to the verdant character of the streetscape and the landscaped setting of Hollin Park to the northwest.

Hollin Park forms part of the Roundhay Conservation Area (CA). Accordingly, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The proposed extension would be close to some of these trees. However, no detailed information has been submitted to identify the species, condition, root protection areas (RPAs), or the likely effects of the proposed development on them.

In the absence of such information, it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether the appeal scheme could be undertaken without causing harm to the health or longevity of these trees. Given the position of the proposed works, including excavation for foundations and associated construction activity, there is a reasonable likelihood of encroachment into the RPAs and damage to tree roots.

I have carefully considered whether this issue could be addressed through the imposition of planning conditions. However, the acceptability of the proposal depends on whether the development can be accommodated without harm to the trees. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to defer this matter for consideration at a later stage. In the absence of the necessary information, I cannot be sure that the proposed development would not result in harm to the nearby trees.

I appreciate that the trees are outside the site and are not statutorily protected through a Tree Preservation Order. Even so, should harm occur to these trees, there would be a consequent erosion of the verdant qualities of the streetscape and the landscaped setting of Hollin Park that would diminish the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset. In those circumstances, the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, having regard to its setting.

Given the modest scale of the new development relative to the size of the CA, the harm caused to the significance of this heritage asset would be less than substantial. In those circumstances, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

The proposal would provide additional living accommodation and make efficient use of the available space within the plot. It would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to parking provision. However, these benefits are limited in scale and are largely private in nature. The limited benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm identified to the significance of the CA.

On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building, the pair and the local area. It therefore conflicts with Policies P10, P11 and P12 of the Council’s Core Strategy, Policies GP5, BD6, N19 and LD1 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), Policy LAND 2 of the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document and the SPD. These policies promote high quality design and aim to ensure that development respects the predominant characteristics of existing development and responds sensitively to the historic environment. There is also a conflict with the statutory duty and the policies of the Framework in relation to the historic environment.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including those of the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.