Appeal 6008019

The appeal is dismissed.

It is noted that in the Council’s Decision Notice that the Reason for [name].1 that the scheme is stated as being contrary to the Leeds Householder Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) “Policy HDG1.” Additionally, Reason for [name].2 states that the scheme would be contrary to “Policy HDG2.” An SPD is not a Development Plan Document; it is guidance, and as such the SPD does not contain planning policies but planning guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, I have treated the SPD as guidance within this determination and not a planning policy.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon: • The character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding locality, and • The living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling, with particular regard to access to light and sense of enclosure towards No.[address].

The appeal site is part of a linear residential development that extends along both sides of [address] that appears to date from the early twentieth century. The extension of residential development along [address] extends the village to the south with much of the village concentrated along [address]. Along both sides of [address] are larger detached and semi-detached Edwardian dwellings setback from [address] which exhibit a status in their positioning with dwellings setback from the street with larger setbacks to sides with large rear gardens where dwellings overlook open countryside beyond. Many of the dwellings exhibit similar designs, proportionality and materials with the positive characteristics and materials Appeal Decision: 6008019 including two storey red brick construction, hipped and pitched roof forms with large end chimney stacks, with low boundary walls and hedging.

The dwellings have been laid out in a largely regimented position with similar setbacks from front and side boundaries with large vegetated front gardens behind either low brick boundary walls or hedging, many of which have a vehicular access driveway. The setbacks and wide gaps in and around the dwellings reinforce a spaciousness and status within the street scene and enables glimpses to the tops of trees in rear gardens, and undeveloped fields beyond. Given the linear positioning along [address], and the wider gaps in between dwellings, side and some of the rear of dwellings are also experienced within the street scene. These positive aspects assist in creating positive elements which reflect the qualities of character, appearance and local distinctiveness for this particular location. Whilst there is evidence of extensions and alterations seen along [address], they are generally subservient and proportionate in scale and massing to the main dwelling and retain the positive characteristics which contribute to local distinctiveness.

The appeal site displays a number of positive qualities which are experienced within the street scene, being one of the characteristic detached dwellings extending along [address], two storeys tall, red brick and three bays wide. The dwelling contains many of the important design elements and original roof forms and visual gaps between properties. In this case there are glimpses to vegetation beyond and a wide gap between the neighbouring properties which reinforces the local character and distinctiveness of the area. There is an emphasis on vegetation, spaciousness and visual gaps around and between properties. The existing dwelling also has a number of rear extensions, such as a two storey rear extension that extends the rear eaves and a single storey rear extension.

In undertaking alterations to existing dwellings, the [name] (CS) Policy P10 is a design led policy that seeks that a number of principles are adhered to such as basing proposals on a thorough context analysis, providing good design principles appropriate to scale and function, responding to local character and townscape, good placemaking, enhancing legibility, character and local distinctiveness, amongst others. Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) seeks that proposals meet detailed planning considerations. Additionally, UDP Saved Policy BD6 is specific to alterations and extensions and seeks that house alterations and extensions must respect the scale, form, detailing, and materials of the original building, ensuring the character and townscape of the area are preserved, amongst others. These policies are also supported by the Leeds Householder Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which gives further design principles and guidance to the design policies.

The proposed two storey rear extension would be two storeys tall, and be approximately three quarters the width of the existing building with a gabled roof that has its apex slightly lower than the apex of the main roof and taller eaves than the extended eaves of the existing extension to the rear as the original eaves are not very decipherable. The proposed rear extension would project to the rear over double the depth of the existing dwelling, further than the existing single storey rear extension, and would contain an additional single storey flat roof component with a Juliet balcony.

[name] appreciate the commentary with regards to the design approach that the Appellant has progressed in order to design an appropriate scheme, for this Appeal Decision: 6008019 particular site, the extension is disproportionate with the increased massing changing the hierarchy between the main component of the dwelling and the extension, which would as proposed be the largest component of the dwelling. The addition of render to this rear extension would also further change the hierarchy and elevate the appearance of the extension over that of the main building, as well as a Juliet balcony which elevates the status of this component of the building. As such the combined form and massing would not be a subservient architectural approach. [name] can appreciate that the eaves have been extended from the original roof, this extended eave line is now how the main roof is read, which would be at a lower height than the extension. It is these types of design considerations, together with the proposed amount of visual bulk and massing which would be overly large and detract from the elements that contribute positively to the local distinctiveness of the area. I also appreciate the comments from the [name] of Case (SoC) that the extension could be finished in brick; and whilst this would alleviate some harm, it would not mitigate the harm caused by the overall bulk and massing that is present.

I appreciate an elevation plan for No.[address] in the (SoC) which gained planning permission for an uncharacteristically large two storey rear extension. I do not have the planning officer’s report to understand the considerations that went into this determination and whether those determinations are similar to this proposal. Despite this, the extension at No.41 does appear to have had some consideration given the garage of the neighbouring property which is placed close to the boundary. The example at no.41 illustrates that the merits of the site and considerations are more site specific in terms of making judgements about appropriateness. As such this planning consent does not provide adequate justification for the appropriateness of the proposal.

I can also appreciate that much of the harm to the character and appearance is caused to the dwelling itself with glimpses to the extension from the street, however an assessment of character and appearance is taken from both the public and private realm. LP Policy DP10, and [name] GP5 of BD6 do not contain different weights or assessments for considering harm to the public vs private realm. As such the visibility alone is not a determinant to the appropriateness of a development. I also note comments around there being no objections to the development from the neighbours. The lack of objection is not a determining factor in the assessment of character and appearance with considerations needing to extend to current and future occupiers.

In conclusion of this matter, the proposed extension would not be a suitable architectural approach as a result of its massing and dominant appearance that is not subservient and dominates the host building. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building, and would not reinforce the positive characteristics of local distinctiveness of the locality. The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to LP Policy P10, and [name] GP5 and BD6 which are supported by the SPD as described previously.

The main concern that the Council raise is regards to access to light and sense of enclosure from the proposed rear extension towards the neighbouring property at No.53. The neighbouring dwelling is semi-detached, and has a relatively large garden with the area closest to the boundary with the appeal site a paved area Appeal Decision: 6008019 whereby the driveway runs along the side of the dwelling to a garage in the rear garden. The rear of the dwelling has windows to habitable rooms, as well as windows along the ground floor and a window to the first floor side elevation of the two storey rear extension.

Beginning with sense of enclosure, the proposed extension would be close to the boundary and have a large two storey wall that would project for over 8 metres. This would be a blank and elongated built form to experience from the rear garden of the neighbouring property. However, the combined setback, together with the size of the garden and remaining outlook would be appreciable and a change from the existing situation, however to me, would not result in a significant harm caused by a sense of enclosure.

Turning to access to light, whilst I have not been presented with any daylight reports, the path of the sun would mean that the extension would cause a shadow to the side of the neighbouring dwelling, particularly in the morning, with the garden gaining more access to sun during the afternoon. I appreciate that the windows on the ground floor of the side elevation would receive less light, but appear to be secondary windows to those to the front and rear. I can appreciate the Council’s arguments that there is no guarantee that this area will remain driveway or hardstanding, however with all things considered, whilst there would be a change to the amount of shadow towards No.53, there is still sufficient land to the rear garden and windows receiving an adequate amount of light.

Taking the above into account, it is considered that whilst there would be a change to the current conditions with regards to living conditions, there are sufficient mitigatory measures which enable the effect to not be materially detrimental. As such in this instance, the proposed scheme would not cause adverse living conditions and be made in accordance with LP Policy P10, and [name] GP5 and BD6 which seeks to ensure that proposals provide appropriate living conditions to current and future occupiers.

[name] have agreed with the Appellant that there is no adverse detriment caused to the living conditions of the neighbour from the proposed development, this would not be enough to outweigh the harm present to the character and appearance of the area when the development plan is read as a whole. As such, based upon the evidence before me, the Development Plan and any material considerations, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.