Appeal 6005749

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council granted planning permission for a two-storey side extension, first floor rear extension and single storey rear extension at the appeal site in August 2025. This permission was subject to a condition (No 2) which seeks to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the list of approved plans.

The application sought to vary condition No 2 by substituting the approved plans with amended plans to provide a wider two storey side extension, re-position the front window and enlarge the rear ground floor window. The Council refused planning permission as it considered the extension as amended would fail to respect the character and appearance of the application site and the wider locality.

The main issue in this appeal is therefore the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.

The site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling on a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The dwelling has various single and two storey offshoots that help to break up its overall mass in places and add interest to the design. It is situated centrally within the plot, with space on all sides to neighbouring properties.

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached house types of varying age. There are several examples of more spacious corner plots that add a greater sense of openness at the intersections between streets, with space between dwellings and mature landscaping providing a respite from the built development.

The Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) April 2012 advises that the proportions of two storey side extensions must respect the proportions of the house and generally not exceed two thirds of the width of the main house. The SPD recognises that the sense of space around some detached houses is often important to the character of an area and should be retained.

The proposed plans indicate that the width of the side extension as amended would not be greater than 2/3 of the full width of the existing house, including its existing side projections. However, individually these are relatively modest in their projection from the side elevation, and both are set back a considerable distance from the main front elevation. As a result, the full width of the existing dwelling, including the side projections, is not apparent in views from [address].

The width of the main front elevation, which sits closest to the road on [address] and is prominent in the street scene, is thus an appropriate baseline from which to assess the comparative width of any significant side extensions. By this measurement, the proposed extension would be appreciably wider than 2/3 of the width of the main front elevation of the existing house.

The extension would be set back from the main front elevation, feature a lower ridge height than the main roof and maintain a gap to the neighbouring dwelling. Nevertheless, it would be a prominent addition to the street scene due to its considerable width, which would be emphasised by the significant gap between the existing and proposed windows in the front elevation. It would appear disproportionate and not subservient to the main dwelling, unbalancing the front elevation and reducing the sense of space. The expansive blank wall at first floor on the rear elevation would further accentuate its excessive width and bulkiness.

While the footprint of the dwelling as extended may represent 26% site coverage, the visual impact of an extension and whether it is of an appropriate size and design is not necessarily predicated on the amount of development on the site. Though the dwelling as extended would be no larger than the adjacent building, this comprises a pair of semi-detached dwellings, and it reads as such in the street scene. The dimensions and appearance of their extensions are commensurate to the respective host dwelling and so the impact of the adjacent building on the street scene is not comparable to that which would arise from the appeal scheme.

The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] (as amended by the [name]

[name] 11 September 2019, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and Policy R2 of the Rawdon Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) 2024 - 2028. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that new development is high quality and appropriate to its context, sensitively designed to respond to the setting of the site and reflect the local character of the surrounding area, and that alternations and extensions respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building. They also require proposals to have regard to the guidance prepared for the area.

[name] have not identified any harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, future occupiers or parking provision, this does not outweigh the identified harm and development plan conflict set out above.

The development would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.