Appeal 6005544

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey side extension, two storey and single storey rear extensions, new rear dormer and hip to gable extension to existing attic bedroom, new velux lights to front, and removal of chimney.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the new porch to front elevation; planning permission is granted for the porch to front elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/06742/FU and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out below:

The porch hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The porch hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location plan; Proposed site plans [name]/OR/P8 Rev0; Proposed elevations [name]/OR/P6 Rev0; and Proposed ground floor plans [name]/OR/P3 Rev0 so far as they relate to the hereby approved development.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the hereby approved development shall match that of the existing built form.

The Council considered that the porch to the front elevation was acceptable. I have no substantive evidence to lead me to a different conclusion upon this part of the proposed development.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the single storey side extension, two storey and single storey rear extensions, new rear dormer and hip to gable extension to existing attic bedroom, new velux lights to front and removal of chimney (i) on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and (ii) on the living conditions on occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling characterised by a relatively simple built form and a hipped roof. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature, with properties of broadly similar age, scale and architectural composition, many have been altered or extended historically.

The adjoining property, No. [address] has been altered and has a hipped roof with large box dormer to the rear, similar to the proposal before me. Taken in isolation the proposed hip to gable with dormer would re-establish a symmetry between the pair.

Notwithstanding this the combination of a rear gabled projection, the hip to gable alteration and the rear dormer would significantly alter the simple roof form of the existing dwelling. The resulting composition would appear overly complex and visually dominant, failing to respect the host property.

Whilst the proposed first floor side extension has been set in from the boundary this creates a form of design which is unbalanced. The roof line of the first floor compared to the proposed garage would not sit comfortably and would appear as an alien addition to the property. The proposed extensions would also add considerable bulk creating an incongruous form of development.

The appellant contends that the proposal responds to previous concerns and accords with guidance, and that the Leeds City Council, [name], Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (the SPD) should be applied flexibly. Whilst it is accepted that such guidance is not prescriptive, it remains a material planning consideration. In this instance, the proposed development and its cumulative visual effect would not achieve a satisfactory design outcome.

The appellant confirms that the development has been carefully designed to occupy well below 50% of the total plot area, whilst this maybe the case it does not justify the development.

The appellant has drawn my attention to approved extensions within the locality. Whilst photographs and plans have been submitted, I have not been provided with substantive details to compare these to the proposal before me for instance in terms of relationship to neighbours, window arrangements, outbuildings and general site specifics. Nevertheless, each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, and my conclusions have been reached having regard to the particular circumstances of the appeal scheme before me.

I find that in combination the single storey side extension, two storey and single storey rear extensions, new rear dormer and hip to gable extension to existing attic bedroom, new roof lights to front and removal of chimney would be unsympathetic to the appeal site which would harm the character and appearance of the host property and area in general.

With regard to the main issue relating to character and appearance there is conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019), Leeds Local Plan (the [name]), and Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (2006) (the UDP) which amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are of good design and appropriate to character of the area.

There is conflict with Policy HDG1 of the SPD which seeks to ensure development respects the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main property and locality.

There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.

The proposed side and rear extensions would be positioned close to the shared boundary with No. [address] which has three ground floor windows facing the appeal site, two of which are obscurely glazed and three first floor windows. Due to the scale and arrangement, the extensions would in combination with the existing outbuilding, which is proposed to incorporate a new hipped roof, be viewed as a near continuous built form. Notwithstanding the small physical gap between structures, the perception would be of a substantial and elongated mass extending along the boundary.

Whilst the detached outbuilding within the garden of No. 44 screens to a degree the existing outbuilding the combined built form would result in a pronounced sense of enclosure when viewed from the neighbouring property, particularly given the overall depth and height of the development. The cumulative effect would be overbearing and would lead to a significant reduction in outlook for the occupants of No. 44.

The proposed first-floor extension would extend beyond what would typically be regarded as acceptable in proximity to a shared boundary, having regard to the guidance set out in the SPD. Whilst such guidance is not absolute, due to the location of windows at No. 44 and the amount of built form the overall development would be dominant creating a sense of enclosure.

I understand that in the previous appeal1 the Inspector found there was nothing to suggest that there would be a material loss of sunlight for occupiers of No. 44 when comparing the existing outbuilding to that proposed in that development. The appellant has provided a shadow analysis which states that the side elevation of No. 44 is permanently in shadow. Whilst a cloudy day, I observed during my site visit that the side elevation of No. 44 had natural light.

I have no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the shadow analysis has been carried out in accordance with relevant BRE guidance. On the basis of the evidence before me and my observations it is unlikely that the change to the outbuildings roof would materially affect sunlight. However, I find that due to the depth and height of the combined extensions there would be a reduction in natural light and openness experienced by the neighbouring occupiers.

In respect of the relationship with No. [address], the proposed single storey rear extension would extend approximately 2.7m beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property’s existing single storey extension. Whilst the SPD 1 APP/N4720/D/25/3363290 generally indicates that a projection of up to 3m may be acceptable, when measured from the original rear elevation of the appeal property the overall projection would exceed this guideline.

Although the extension would not project beyond 3m when taken from the extended ground floor elevation of No. 48, its position results in a breach of the 45-degree code when assessed against the large, glazed doors to that rear elevation. As such, I find that the development would give rise to diminished outlook. By contrast, the proposed first floor rear extension would not infringe the 45-degree code and is therefore not considered to result in material harm in this particular regard.

The Council do not raise concerns in relation to overlooking, from the information I have and from observations from my site visit I agree.

Notwithstanding this with regard to the main issue relating to living conditions of neighbouring properties there is conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] and Policy GP5 of the UDP which amongst other things seek to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

There is conflict with Policy HDG2 of the SPD which seeks to ensure development protects the amenity of neighbours. There is also conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant has raised procedural concerns relating to the determination of a previous application2, dismissed appeal3, pre-application response4 and the application which resulted in this appeal. These asserted issues are beyond the remit of this appeal and do not influence my findings.

The appellant references fallback positions in terms of previous schemes that should have been approved. A fallback position is where a development can occur if the proposed development were refused. The previous schemes have not been approved therefore they are not realistic fallback positions. Notwithstanding this each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merits of the appeal proposal before me.

The appellant contends that the current living accommodation is inadequate and that the proposed development would provide much needed living space for a family of 5, which would also provide defensible space with the aim of preventing crime. I have not been provided with substantive evidence demonstrating that the development would be the only way to fulfil any need of the appellant. I give this limited weight.

I find the proposed porch to the front elevation is clearly severable both physically and functionally from the proposed single storey side extension, two storey and 2 24/07120/FU 3 APP/N4720/D/25/3363290 4 PREAPP/25/00037 single storey rear extensions, new rear dormer and hip to gable extension to existing attic bedroom, new velux lights to front, and removal of chimney.

I conclude that the appeal should succeed in relation to the porch to the front elevation. However, in relation to the proposed single storey side extension, two storey and single storey rear extensions, new rear dormer and hip to gable extension to existing attic bedroom, new velux lights to front, and removal of chimney, the appeal should be dismissed.

In respect of the porch to front elevation, I have attached the standard time limit condition and a plans condition as this provides certainty. I have also added conditions concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance.