Appeal 6007594

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed front dormer would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a modest, traditional mid-terrace dwelling with a pitched slate roof, located within the [site address] Conservation Area (the CA). The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) identifies the site as lying within Character Area 4: [name]. This area is characterised by densely arranged terraces with simple roof forms, regular chimney patterns and a strong degree of repetition and uniformity.

The appeal property forms part of a terrace which, despite some modern alteration, remains representative of this established character. It is identified within the CAAMP as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, and I agree with that assessment.

The proposal includes, amongst other elements, a dormer to the front roof slope. The remaining elements of the scheme, including the rear extension, rooflight and fenestration changes, would be modest and acceptable in isolation. Accordingly, the effect of the proposed front dormer is determinative in this case.

The front roof slopes of the terrace are a prominent and important component of the streetscene. Their simple form and appearance contribute to the architectural coherence and visual rhythm of the terrace, which in turn contributes to the significance of the CA as a whole. Although the proposed dormer would be relatively modest in scale, it would nevertheless introduce an additional element into the roof plane, interrupting its simple form.

I have taken into account that there are existing dormers within the street, including some within the appeal terrace. However, the majority of properties within the terrace retain their original, uninterrupted roof slopes. Moreover, the existing dormers are not original features and do not reflect traditional historic forms as advised in the CAAMP. Their presence illustrates the incremental erosion of the architectural integrity of the area. The CAAMP identifies such cumulative change as a pressure affecting the CA, noting that the gradual loss of traditional detailing has weakened the uniformity of some terraces. The proposal would further contribute to this harmful trend.

I note that the Council’s previous decisions at the site did not identify harm arising from a front dormer. However, each case must be determined on its own merits, having regard to the development plan, the CAAMP and the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The absence of previous concern by the Council does not alter my assessment of the proposal now before me.

I have also had regard to the Council’s Householder Design Guide, which advises that front dormers are generally unacceptable where they interrupt simple and coherent roofscapes, unless such features have become a defining characteristic of the street. Whilst dormers are present here, they have not altered the character to such an extent that the simple roof form is no longer a defining feature.

For these reasons, the proposed front dormer would be a harmful addition to the host building and would further erode the significance of the CA. The harm would be less than substantial in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), falling towards the lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, it would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This harm carries considerable importance and weight.

The benefits of the proposal would primarily arise from improved internal accommodation and living conditions for the occupiers, together with general maintenance. These are private benefits. The appellant refers to improvements in thermal performance, but while some improvement is likely, there is limited evidence to demonstrate that it would be significant. There would also be limited, short-term economic benefits associated with construction, which attract only modest weight. Taken together, these considerations do not amount to public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh the identified heritage harm.

Although the other elements of the proposal would be acceptable in isolation, they form part of a single composite scheme. I have no alternative proposal before me which omits the dormer, and it would not be appropriate to determine the appeal on the basis of a materially different scheme. I have therefore assessed the proposal as a whole.

Consequently, in line with my duty under Section 72(1) of the Act, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It conflicts with Policies P10, P11 and P12 of the [name] (amended 2019), saved Policies GP5, BD6 and N19 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), the CAAMP, and parts 12 and 16 of the Framework. Collectively, these seek high quality design and the conservation of the historic environment.

I have taken into account the appellant’s efforts to engage with the Council and the absence of third-party objection. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm identified and do not alter my conclusions.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.