Appeal 6007821

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor front extension over existing single storey at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/07062/FU, subject to the following conditions:

The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Location and [name] – 2389.25093 - P04 • [name] – 2389.25093 - P02 • Elevations – 2389.25093 - P03

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials, the details of which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include the specification of the materials to be used.

As part of their appeal submission the appellant has provided an alternative elevation plan detailing a different material finish to the external elevation of the proposed first-floor extension. This plan has been submitted in response to concerns relating to the proposed materials raised within the Council’s reason for refusal on the Decision Notice and [name]. For reasons detailed later in this decision letter, I have however determined the appeal against the plans considered by the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the host property.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, detached dwelling within a residential area largely characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached properties of varying designs and styles, with a variety of materials used on their external elevations. I observed that a number of properties in the vicinity, including the appeal dwelling, have been extended and altered.

The gable fronted appeal property is set back from the highway, behind a low front boundary wall and a front garden / driveway area. It has an existing two-storey side extension finished in brick, with the first-floor of the front gable elevation of the main dwelling finished in brick and hanging tiles. The appeal property also has a stone built single-storey front extension.

The proposal seeks consent for a first-floor front extension, set above a section of the existing single-storey, stone built front extension. Policy HDG1 of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD) sets out that all extensions, additions and alterations should respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality, and that proposals which harm the character and appearance of the main dwelling, or the locality, will be resisted.

With specific regard to two-storey front extensions, albeit noting that the proposal is for a first-floor extension above an existing single-storey extension, the relevant section of the SPD states that two-storey front extensions will not normally be acceptable and that the front of a house is the most visible and prominent part of the dwelling and has a key role to play in defining its character. It goes on to state that very small extensions might be possible, however larger additions are unlikely to be acceptable, and particular attention should be paid to the building line.

The SPD then however states that front extensions may be acceptable where, the house is well set back from the front boundary; there is a lack of uniformity within the street scene; and the proposal will not harm the character of the locality.

In regard to this guidance, the proposal would not extend the host property any closer to the highway at the front as it would be sited above an existing single-storey front extension. Additionally, I observed that the building line along this side of [address] is already disrupted by existing front extensions, as well as the properties to the east on [address] which are set closer to the back of the highway.

Whilst acknowledging that the proposal would result in the first-floor of the appeal property extending marginally forward of the front elevation of the adjacent property at [address], given that these properties are well set back from the highway, this slight forward projection would be barely discernible within the street scene. Furthermore, the front of the appeal property would retain the slight set back behind the building line of the properties on [address] to the east. The proposal would not therefore have a harmful impact upon the existing building line along the northern side of [address] and [address].

With regard to its design, the proposed extension would be modest in size and projection, and would have a pitched roof design, with the ridge set below that of the main dwelling. It would be seen as a subservient feature and would not be overly dominant. The proposal would not therefore harm the character or appearance of the host property.

In addition, I observed that there is a lack of unity within this street scene, resulting from the variety of different house types and designs, many of which have been extended, including examples of other similar two-storey front extensions in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property. I note the Council’s comments that these front extensions were approved prior to the adoption of the SPD, however they still form part of the existing street scene and character of the area. Consequently, I find that the design and scale of the proposal would be in keeping with surrounding properties and would not have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

With regard to materials, the submission with the planning application proposed for the extension to be finished in stone, to match the existing single-storey extension above which it would be built. However, following concerns raised by the Council the appellant has included an alternative plan with the appeal showing the proposed extension, and part of the existing single-storey extension, to be finished in brick and render. This alternative plan does not however show any alterations to the remainder of the single-storey front extension and I can therefore only presume that it would be retained in stone.

Whilst there is render in the wider area, I did not observe any render on the appeal property itself. As such, this alternative proposal would introduce a further material (render) to the front elevation of the appeal property, in addition to the existing brick, stone and hanging tiles.

Nonetheless, and in any case, I observed that there are various examples of properties in both the immediate and wider area finished in stone, including the properties directly opposite the appeal site. As such, I find that the use of stone on the proposed first-floor extension, to match the existing single-storey front extension, would be acceptable in this locality.

I note the proposal includes minor alterations to some of the windows in the front elevation of the property. The Council’s submission raises no objection to these alterations and based on my observations on site I see no reason to disagree.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. I therefore find no conflict with Policy P10 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy (2019) and saved Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) where they together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development respects the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building, and is appropriate within its locality.

I also find no conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework where it seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. The proposal would also adhere to the guidance within Policy HDG1 of the SPD, the provisions of which I have set out above.

The appeal site is not located within a conservation area, however the boundary of the Woodlesford Conservation Area (CA) is situated on the opposite side of the highway. The significance of the CA largely derives from the architectural and historic interest associated with Woodlesford’s development from an agricultural village to an expanding settlement that is predominantly residential in character.

I observed that the appeal site makes a limited contribution to the setting of the CA and for the reasons detailed above I have found that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, I find that the appeal proposal would not negatively affect the significance of this heritage asset as a whole, and would not cause harm to the setting of the CA.

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (2). I have also imposed a condition requiring details of the materials (3) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension to be submitted to, and agreed with, the local planning authority. This condition is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of both the appeal property and the surrounding area, and within their appeal submission the appellant confirmed they would be agreeable to such a condition.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, the proposed development would accord with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate it should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.