Appeal 6004587

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of garage, conservatory, porch, rear extension, and stable block; part two storey, part single storey wraparound extension to front, side and rear including a new double garage with balcony over; balcony with glass balustrade to side at first floor; remodel of driveway to side; dormer window to rear, rooflights to front at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04835/FU, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos (PL)102 [name]; (PL)103 [name]; (PL)104 [name]; (PL)105 [name]; (PL)106 [name] and (PL)107 [name].

The appellant has submitted a topographical survey and modelling in response to concerns from the neighbouring occupiers regarding the accuracy of the plans, which confirms spot heights based on topographical survey levels. It does not seek to evolve the scheme and shows the proposal that was considered by the Council. I have therefore accepted the topographical survey and modelling.

Following the submission of the appeal against non-determination, the Council has confirmed that it would have recommended refusal if it had had the opportunity to make a decision. From the evidence before me, together with my site visit observations I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property, bearing in mind it would be within the [address]/Scotland Lane Local Heritage Area (LHA) and on the living conditions of the occupiers of Hopewell, with regard to privacy.

The appeal site accommodates a previously extended detached dwelling within a large corner plot at the end of [address], a residential street featuring a mix of dwellings of differing design, scale, form and appearance, generally set within extensive gardens and mature landscaping. This creates a sense of place and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The site falls within the LHA, designated under Policy BE3 of the Horsforth Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2028 (HNP). The LHA and the appeal property are Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA). Insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the LHA is primarily derived from the surviving historic fabric which describes the development of this part of Horsforth and the associated architectural detailing and layout of the buildings within it. The appeal property, as a period property within a generous plot contributes positively to the LHA. It’s significance as a NDHA primarily stems from its historic interest and associated appearance.

The proposal would remove several structures of varying scales and quality and introduce a part single part two storey wrap around extension to the side and rear. The resultant increase in footprint would be relatively modest when taking account of the generous plot size. The appeal site would continue to relate positively to the existing spatial relationships between houses and their plots along [address] and retain its verdant landscaped qualities. There is no substantive evidence that the existing outbuilding forms part of the significance of the appeal property as an NDHA, and my attention has not been drawn to any features of heritage value. Thus, there is no clear reason why its demolition would be detrimental to the LHA.

The removal of the conservatory and porch on the principal elevation and the cleaning of the coursed stone walling and ashlar stone surrounds would better reveal the historic fabric and details of the property in views from [address]. The side extension would appear subservient owing to the lower ridge height to the existing property and the modern features would be limited to a small element of zinc cladding that would match in colour to the existing slate tiles, and the glass balustrade balcony and openings at ground floor level. The proposed material palette would match the tonality of the existing materials in the appeal property and surrounding development, creating a visual connection with the NDHAs rather than competing with them.

The courtyard arrangement and proposed height of the extension on the side elevation would ensure that in glimpsed views from [address] down the long driveway the appeal property would remain legible. Furthermore, a complimentary architectural narrative would be achieved with the neighbouring property at Hopewell through the use of modern features such as the zinc roof, generous glazing and balconies. The dormer roof extension at the rear elevation would be set down from the ridge line, up from the rear elevation and in from the side elevations. Despite its length, the outward face and depth of the dormer and finish with slate hung tiles to match the existing roof ensures that it would not dominate the roof.

Overall, the proposal is a well-considered design response to the site and would make a positive contribution to the visual interest of the existing varied appearance of the surrounding area. In taking a balanced judgement1 having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the appeal property and LHA the proposal would not diminish the significance of the NDHAs. It would therefore comply with the provisions in the Framework regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.

In conclusion, the proposal would relate positively to the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property, bearing in mind it would be within the LHA. It would be in accordance with saved policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDPR), policies P10 and P11 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] selective Review 2019) (CS) and HNP policies BE1, BE3, BE4 and BE6. Amongst other things, these policies require alterations and extensions within local heritage areas to contribute to placemaking through high quality design that respects the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building which is appropriate to its context, reflecting the traditional pattern of buildings and spaces, retaining and reflecting historic features.

The neighbouring property known as Hopewell is set in from the shared boundary, separated by a car port. There are two windows at first floor level facing the appeal site which the appellant indicates are secondary windows serving two bedrooms with the main outlook to the front and rear of the property. This is not disputed by the Council or the neighbouring occupiers.

The proposed balcony on the eastern elevation would be set in from the shared boundary. As such, any views into the first-floor windows at Hopewell would not be at close range and would not diminish the level of privacy that could reasonably be expected by the occupiers. Despite the balcony’s elevated position, the mature hedging at the shared boundary would ensure that the neighbours’ privacy in the front garden would be protected. There is no detailed evidence that the proposal would result in the loss or damage to trees at the shared boundary, which in combination with the hedging would offer an element of screening. Due to the distance between the proposed openings on the rear elevation to the shared boundary, any views into Hopewell or the gardens would not be so significant as to result in a loss of privacy that would be detrimental to the occupiers’ quality of life.

The edge of the proposed balcony on the western side of the appeal property would be close to the shared boundary. However, in combination with its narrow width and the proximity and height of the garage at Hopewell there would be very limited views from it into the rear garden and neighbouring property. In any event, it seems unlikely that someone would be standing at the northern most edge of the balcony given its extensive length. Even if they did, from here views into the windows of Hopewell would be at an oblique angle. As such, the balcony on the western elevation would not significantly diminish privacy levels.

The Council has no concerns with regard to the effect of the proposal on outlook from Hopewell. While it would be a visual change, having visited the site, and taking account of the layout of the proposal relative to the neighbouring property, alongside the topographical survey and modelling I have no clear reason to come 1 Paragraph 209 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). to a different view on this matter, or to find that the submitted plans are misleading or inaccurate.

The effects of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers would not be excessive and therefore it would be in line with the guidance contained within HDG2 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) and the provisions of the Framework that seek places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

To conclude, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Hopewell, with regard to privacy. It would be in accordance with UDPR Policy GP5 and CS Policy P10, insofar as they require proposals to protect visual amenity and contribute to quality of life.

It is necessary to impose a condition identifying the approved plans for certainty. As the plans show the proposed external materials a separate condition is not necessary. Notwithstanding the positive contribution trees make to biodiversity and carbon storage, there is no substantive evidence that a condition to secure a replacement tree planting scheme is reasonable or required by the development plan and so has not been imposed.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that I should take a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.