Appeal 6007204

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the front & side single storey extension.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the rear outbuilding. Planning permission is therefore granted for the rear outbuilding at [site address] , Lofthouse, Leeds [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/06444/FU, insofar as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans insofar as they relate to the rear outbuilding only: ‘ [site address] – WF3 [name] 1:100’, ‘Block/Site Plan Scale 1:500 Dated 09/09/2025’ and ‘Site Location Plan Scale 1:1250 Dated 28/09/2025’.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the rear outbuilding 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.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council’s officer report and decision notice specifically identifies harm in terms of the proposed single storey front extension. Notwithstanding the comments submitted by interested parties, there is nothing before me to suggest that the Council has concerns regarding the proposed single storey side extension and the rear outbuilding. I see no compelling reasons to disagree with its findings on these elements of the scheme. Therefore, I have defined the main issues with reference to the proposed single storey front extension only.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed single storey front extension on: i) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and ii) highway safety, in terms of parking.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling situated in a residential area. The dwellings on Sherwood Green are generally consistent in terms of their two-storey scale, hipped roofs and facing brickwork. The front elevations are orderly in terms of their appearance, where extensions and alterations are limited to modest canopies over front doors. The visual consistency of the street scene including the absence of front extensions such as at the appeal property, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I have had regard to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD). This advises that extensions should respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality. It also advises that extensions which harm the character and appearance of the main dwelling or the locality will be resisted.

Due to the excessive scale of the proposed single storey front extension where it would span the ground floor front elevation and would sit just below the first-floor windows, it would appear as a bulky and conspicuous addition to the host dwelling. This would harmfully contrast with the otherwise modest canopies on the front elevations of dwellings on Sherwood Green. Accordingly, the extension would be an incongruous addition to the host dwelling which would undermine the visual consistency of the street scene, particularly with regards to the orderly front elevations. The use of matching materials would not be sufficient to successfully assimilate the front extension with the host dwelling and its surroundings.

Consequently, the proposed single storey front extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy P10 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy (2019) (CS) and [name] BD5, BD6 and GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP), which amongst other matters, require that development is appropriate to its context and respects the amenity, character and quality of the surrounding area and buildings.

For the same reasons, the extension would conflict with the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which advises that developments should respect the character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality and add to the overall quality of the area.

The proposed single storey front extension would result in the loss of the shared driveway to the front of the host dwelling. However, from my own observations on my site visit, the driveway is small and could likely only accommodate one parked car. There are also limited details before me of the appropriate parking provision for the dwelling, or which elements of the Council’s Transport Supplementary Planning Document (2023) are most pertinent to the proposal.

I acknowledge that interested parties raised concerns regarding on-street parking availability on Sherwood Green. However, although I appreciate that my site visit was a snapshot in time, there was plenty of on-street parking available when I visited the site. Furthermore, many of the properties in the street have driveways which are likely to cater for the parking demand in the area. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest otherwise. With these factors in mind and considering that the front extension would only result in the loss of one parking space, the loss of the driveway would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, by virtue of any additional parking demand it would create.

I am also conscious that an interested party indicates that the driveway is shared with the neighbouring property and they have raised concerns regarding its loss. Nevertheless, the front extension would still only result in the loss of one parking space. Accordingly, even if the driveway is shared, its loss would not equate to highway safety harm in terms of parking. Matters relating to shared access could reasonably be resolved outside the scope of this appeal.

For the above reasons, the proposed single storey front extension would not be harmful to highway safety, in terms of parking. It would comply with Policy T2 of the CS and Saved Policy GP5 of the UDP, which require that developments should be located in accessible locations and resolve planning details including access.

With regard to the appellant’s comments regarding granting planning permission for the rear outbuilding only, the Council has found that the proposed outbuilding would be acceptable, and I see no reason to form a different conclusion. As this is clearly separate from the host dwelling, I am satisfied that this element is clearly severable from the other elements of the development which would be attached to the host dwelling.

The Council has not requested any conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. Nevertheless, I have included conditions requiring that the approved elements of the proposed development are to be commenced within the standard time period as well as referring to the approved plans insofar as they relate to the matters granted planning permission only. This is in the interests of certainty and clarity.

Given that there are limited details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the rear outbuilding on the application form or on the plans, and that it might be visible from the surrounding dwellings and gardens, I have included a condition requiring that the appellant submits the details of such materials prior to their use. This is in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

The Council’s officer report states that because it has a WC, the proposed outbuilding could theoretically be used as a separate dwelling or self-contained unit. An interested party has also commented that the outbuilding should not be used for habitation. However, the layout shows that the outbuilding would be used as a garden room and a gym and the description of development for which permission would be granted clearly refers to it as an outbuilding. There is nothing before me to confirm that it would be used for habitation or as a separate dwelling or self-contained unit. In any event, if the outbuilding was used for these purposes, this would be a matter for the Council to investigate and may necessitate the requirement for planning permission. Accordingly, although my recommendation is that the outbuilding should be allowed, it is not necessary to include a condition which seeks to limit the use of the outbuilding.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed insofar as the outbuilding is concerned, and dismissed insofar as it relates to the side and front extensions to the main house.