Appeal 6007666

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension, single storey rear extension, and roof conversion and extension at [site address] , Oulton, Leeds, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/07023/FU and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building .

The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. The Council’s decision notice describes the proposed development as “Single storey rear extension; first/second floor side extension forming a new floor with dormer window to rear and roof lights.”

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling and it is situated within a residential area characterised by a broad range of house types, including two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings; and detached and semi-detached bungalows.

Dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind gardens and parking areas, with gardens to the rear. Gardens, trees and the low height of the bungalows in the area all combine to provide for a green and spacious character. Further, a common palette of red brick, render and tiles provides for a pleasant sense of uniformity.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended and that such changes tend to appear in character with host dwellings and their surroundings. The appeal dwelling is itself situated between two detached dwellings, each of which have been the subject of large extensions.

The proposed development would include extending the host property to the side. In replacing a poorly matched existing side extension, I find that this element of the proposal would result in a notable improvement to the appearance of the dwelling.

The appeal dwelling already extends to its shared side boundary with Number 18 and the replacement side extension would be set well back from and sit below the height of, the front elevation of this neighbouring dwelling. There would be no significant change to the existing small gap between these two neighbouring dwellings and the proposed development would not result in the creation of any harmful terracing effect – indeed, the visual gap between Nos 18 and [address], would appear little different to that which currently exists.

During my site visit, I noted that many houses in the area have been extended at roof level and that dormers are a common presence. The dwellings to either side of the appeal property have both been extended to the rear at roof level.

The proposed dormer would be set down from the ridge, up from the eaves and off-set from the sides of the host dwelling – significantly so from that side closest to No 18. As such, it would not appear as an unduly dominant feature but would appear in keeping with the extended roof forms of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed dormer would not appear top-heavy but rather, it would appear “in-balance” with other elements of the proposal the subject of this appeal.

Taking this and all of the above into account, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy P10 of the [name] (2014, amended 2019); to Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006); or to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

I have considered the conditions against the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework. I find that a condition in respect of materials is necessary in the interests of local character.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful.