Appeal 6005941

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a roof extension to form gables with dormers to the front and rear and to remove conservatory to rear and form new extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/06777/FU, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PP-14497687v1 – Location Plan and [name]. 3107 [name] 02 [name] – [name] and Elevations.

No development shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

The Council do not raise any concerns with the proposed roof extension, rear dormer extension or the removal of a conservatory to form a new extension. Therefore, the focus of this appeal is the proposed front dormer extension.

The main issue is the effect of the front dormers on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow occupying a corner plot on [address] and is well screened from the street by a mature hedgerow. The general pattern of development in the vicinity comprises two-storey semi-detached properties, however there are bungalows both to the rear of the appeal property and on the opposite side of the road to the front. There is a pronounced change in ground levels which results in the appeal property being positioned notably higher than the properties on the opposite side of [address].

When viewed from the street, the presence of dormers are not notable features to properties on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site. Here, there is a general uniformity to the design and pattern of roofscapes. However, the orientation and design of the roof pattern to properties on the same side of [address] to the appeal site is pronounceably different. This includes roofs which run parallel and perpendicular to the street and the presence of a dormer at No.11, albeit it is understood that no planning permission exists for this. Furthermore, I observed during my site visit three 1970’s chalet-style properties which face the side elevation of the appeal property and include prominent dormers to both their front and rear elevations.

The proposed development involves the installation of two dormer windows on the front elevation of the appeal property. The dormers would be positioned towards both ends of the roofscape and would incorporate windows into two separate bedroom spaces. The proposed dormers would be incorporated into a remodelled roof structure which would seek to extend and broaden the ridge line of the roof to incorporate a living area at the first-floor level. Both dormers would include a pitched roof element which would extend to just below the overall roof ridgeline.

The proposed installation of dormers to the front elevation of the appeal property would not be inconsistent with the eclectic and varied roof patterns found in the street scene of [address]. [name] would acknowledge the uniformity of roof patterns on the opposite side of the road to the appeal property, the side on which the appeal property is situated has a varied mix of roofing styles and patterns in terms of height, orientation, design and the inclusion of dormers to street facing elevations.

It is into this eclectic mix of roofing patterns that the proposed dormers would be viewed, and given this variety, they would be in-keeping with the roofscape of the street and would not appear out of character. The proposed dormers would, due to their overall size and positioning, appear subordinate to the roof when viewed from the street, with the changes in levels assisting in mitigating any visual impact.

Consequently, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of either the host property or the wider area and would be consistent with Policy P10 of the Leeds Local Plan: [name] (as amended by the [name] 2019) which states that the size, scale, design and layout of development should be appropriate to its context and respect the character and quality of surrounding buildings. The proposal is also consistent with Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) which promotes high quality design and that all alterations and extensions should respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building. The proposal also reflects the aims and ambitions of the Rawdon Neighbourhood Development Plan, particularly Policy R2 which expects new development to be designed sensitively to respond to the setting of the site and reflect the local character of the surrounding area.

To meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I shall also impose a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition requiring samples of materials are provided prior to commencement of the development is necessary to ensure they match those used on the existing house to compliment the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development does not conflict with the development plan and therefore should be allowed.