Appeal 6005315

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately describes the extent of the development proposed.

A replacement tree planting scheme plan has been submitted with the appeal. It was not before the Council at the time of its decision, although the evidence shows that the same plan was listed as an approved drawing for an earlier permission at the site in 20251. That permission remains extant and related to broadly similar development, sharing key characteristics of footprint and layout. Having taken account of the parties’ submissions, I am satisfied that accepting the plan would not cause prejudice. I have therefore considered it as part of the appeal scheme.

At the time of my visit, construction works were ongoing. I observed that some of the alterations and extensions differed in size and detail to those that are depicted on the submitted plans. For example, the position and size of openings in the rear elevation of the single storey rear extension. I note the appellant’s contention that works have lawfully commenced on the previously approved extensions. Whether or not that is the case, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans in respect of the proposed development, rather than that carried out on site.

The proposal comprises an extensive series of extensions. The Council has not objected to the additions to the rear and south-eastern elevations, and I see no reason to take a different view. My consideration is therefore confined to the matters in dispute, namely the extensions to the front of the dwelling. The main issues in this appeal are therefore, the effect of the proposed 2-storey front infill 1 With reference to planning application 25/01928/FU. extension and part single storey, part two storey front and side extension upon, i) the character and appearance of the host property and wider area, including whether appropriate replacement tree planting would be secured, and ii), the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a substantial detached and characterful 2-storey dwelling, set within a generous plot where mature trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) contribute to its setting. The horizontal proportions of the windows respond to the elongated form of the dwelling, the large scale of which is counterbalanced by 2 projecting gable features. This results in a composition that is well-proportioned and visually attractive.

The surrounding area is residential, characterised by large, individually designed houses set back consistently from the road behind landscaped frontages2. While architectural styles vary, the dwellings share unifying characteristics including their detached form, horizontal proportions and balanced window to wall ratio. These features contribute to the spacious, verdant character of the street scene. As one such detached dwelling, the appeal site contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Policy HDG1 of the Council’s Householder Design Guide SPD ([name]), requires all extensions, additions and alterations to respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality, regardless of whether it is a listed building or located within a Conservation Area. It advises that all parts of the extension should adequately reflect the proportions of the existing house and mirror its architectural detailing, with particular attention being paid to the shape and size of windows and doors, including pane size and arrangement, glazing bars, heads, cills and lintels.

The 2-storey front infill extension would introduce a large, double-height glazed feature to the principal elevation. While contemporary design is not inherently unacceptable, in this case, the scale and extent of glazing would appear visually assertive and discordant in its context. Its strong vertical emphasis, spanning two storeys, would contrast uncomfortably with the more traditional, horizontally expressed proportions of the host dwelling. Moreover, the glazing would not be recessed at the back edge of the facing wall, such that there would be little articulation including depth and shadow, to highlight the window as a high-quality architectural feature. The glazing would therefore appear flat and lacking dimensionality. Its overall finish would not reflect the high-quality detailing of the host dwelling.

Notwithstanding the set-back of the dwelling and the presence of boundary planting, the upper part and apex of the infill extension would be clearly visible from [address]. In these views it would appear incongruous, failing to integrate with either the architectural language of the host dwelling or the 2 As observed during my site visit and as described in the Sandmoor Character Area section of the Alwoodley Neighbourhood Plan (2018). prevailing character of the street. When internally lit, the large expanse of glazing would further draw the eye to a negative degree.

The front and rear elevations of the dwelling would not be seen together. Although the rear elevation would contain large expanses of glazing post-development, it would not contain a full 2-storey glazed gable. Even if it did, it is common for larger expanses of glazing to the rear elevations of dwellings where they typically retain a greater degree of privacy. This limits the relevance of such treatment as a precedent for the principal elevation.

No other dwellings within the vicinity of the appeal site contained similar 2-storey fully glazed gable features. Some, such as No 4A and 11 contain stair windows, but these are generally of much more traditional and smaller proportions. The example at 29A demonstrates why the proportion and treatment of large, glazed openings require careful consideration. Similarly, the approval at No [address] results in a top heavy 2-storey gable projection due to the large first floor glazed opening. Nonetheless, neither it, nor the permitted extension at No 10, would be a fully glazed 2-storey projection like the proposal.

I acknowledge that [name] (No 31) contains a fully glazed wall. However, this forms a subservient link between the house and garage, both of which are set at a slightly lower land level than the street. Its recessed position and specific framing detail, render it a good quality feature that does not compete with, or contradict, the architectural style and fenestration pattern of the host dwelling. That would not be the case here. The examples that I have been referred to are not therefore comparable.

The part single storey, part 2-storey front and side extension would be larger in scale than a similar previously approved proposal3, due to increased eaves and ridge height, as well as a wider footprint to the front garage section. Nonetheless, it would appear as a single storey building, clearly subordinate in size and form when viewed against the scale of the host dwelling behind.

However, the proposed dormer window above the garage doors would have a large scale and mass that would introduce a bulky and poorly articulated feature that would overwhelm the roof slope. Owing to the siting of the dwelling on a bend in the road, this element would be visible above the retained hedge and only partially filtered by trees, adding to its intrusive appearance. Therefore, whilst I find that the scale of the proposed garage projection to be acceptable, its specific detailing would fail to respect the architectural quality of the host dwelling.

Policy LAND2 of the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (NRWDPD) 2013, requires development to conserve trees wherever possible and, where loss is unavoidable, to provide suitable replacement planting.

The evidence presented indicates the proposal necessitates the removal of 2 trees and the G5 hedgerow from the appeal site. The Council’s Landscape Team considers that the 3 proposed replacement trees to be located in the south-western corner of the rear garden, as shown on the replacement tree planting plan4 are unacceptable. This is because they would have insufficient space to reach maturity. Concerns were also raised about the lack of information regarding 3 Planning application reference 25/01928/FU. 4 Drawing number TCC-2185-1 Rev 1. the removal of the G5 hedge and whether it would include the removal of any tree stems measuring 150mm or over. It is unclear why this plan was accepted for the previous approval for development on the appeal site and whether the [name] expressed similar concerns. Regardless, no information has been provided to warrant me accepting the position of the proposed replacement trees.

Whilst soft landscaping can sometimes be appropriately dealt with by a planning condition, in this case there is nothing before me to confirm that the appellant is agreeable to the provision of trees in the locations previously suggested by the Council. Neither is there clarity over whether additional tree or hedgerow planting is required to ensure compliance with Policy LAND2. Even though the plot is sizeable, so too is the size of the dwelling and the extent of trees covered by the TPO. I cannot be certain that there is appropriate space within the site for the amount and type of tree planting necessary, to be accommodated successfully without negatively impacting on existing trees and/or the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

Given the acknowledged importance of trees within the appeal site and as the effectiveness of replacement planting is central to the acceptability of the proposal, it should be addressed at the decision stage. Even if a condition could be considered appropriate, it would not overcome the harm arising from the specific design and treatment of the 2-storey infill extension or the dormer window to the garage.

For the above reasons, the proposed front extensions taken together with the uncertainty surrounding replacement tree planting, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. It would be contrary to Policies P10 and P12 of the Leeds Local Plan; [name] (CS) 2019, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the saved Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006, Policy BE2 of the Alwoodley Neighbourhood Plan (2018) and Policy LAND2 of the NRWDPD. Together these policies seek to ensure that the size, scale, design and layout of the development is appropriate to its context, respecting the character and quality of surrounding buildings and the wider locality. Conflict would also arise with the [name], and the guidance in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to secure high-quality, well-integrated design.

No [address] lies adjacent to the appeal site and includes an orangery close to the shared boundary. The proposed garage would project forward of this structure, but it would be set in from the boundary. Existing boundary treatments, along with retained trees on the neighbouring land, provide substantial screening. Although the G5 hedgerow within the appeal site would be removed, it is proposed to be replanted with similar species. If established with appropriately sized specimens, I have no reason to doubt that this would provide a level of screening equivalent to the existing arrangement.

Moreover, I observed that the orangery benefits from 2 sets of tripartite windows to the front elevation. The room also has a dual aspect with windows also looking towards the private rear garden, such that it has a good degree of outlook. It seems to me that there are specific mitigating factors that would prevent the proposed garage extension from unduly harming the outlook afforded to the neighbouring occupiers of No 9.

The two-storey infill extension would be well separated from No 9 on the other side of the proposed garage and an existing 2-storey gable projection. It would not affect the living conditions of the neighbours.

I find that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect in respect of the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy P10 of the CS and Policy GP5 of the UDP which together seek, amongst other things, to avoid the loss of amenity.

The extant approval for extensions including a 2-storey front infill gable extension and single storey front/side garage, constitutes a fallback position that has a realistic prospect of being implemented5. It is clear from the plans that the approved extensions would be of a high-quality, reflecting and respecting the character of the existing dwelling. They would also be of a marginally smaller scale. In this respect, the fallback position would be considerably different and an improved scenario, that would not exert harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area. This does not affect my findings.

I have found that the proposed development would not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No 9. However, this lack of harm weighs neutrally in the planning balance, neither for, nor against, the proposal. It does not therefore, outweigh my findings in respect of the harmful effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area, and the resultant conflict with the development plan. There are no other material considerations to indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.