Conservatory conversion glass roof to tiled roof and new conservatory to the rear of previous conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2017 by Mike Worden BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 06 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/17/3177971 19A Victoria Gardens, Horsforth, Leeds LS18 4PJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Mick Harling against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/02351/FU, dated 10 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 June 2017.  The development proposed is conservatory conversion glass roof to tiled roof and new conservatory to the rear of previous conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house. It is of a different design to the nearby semi-detached properties in the street in that it has a central tunnel which provides access to the rear. The rear gardens of the property and its neighbouring properties are narrow but are very long. The houses and gardens are on an incline with the land sloping downwards the higher numbered properties in the street. The adjoining semi-detached property, 21A has an existing rear extension, as does its neighbour no 21, and the property on the other side of the appeal property, no 19. The appeal property currently has a conservatory extension to the rear which extends to around 4m in length. 4. The proposed development would make alterations to the existing conservatory and extend it outwards by around 5m to create a new conservatory. This would create an extension of around 9m in length overall. The proposed extension would also be wider than the existing conservatory, at around 4.1m. 5. The proposed development by virtue of its length and width would create a significantly large extension to the rear of the host property. The width of the proposed additional element would extend across most of the width of the garden. I have taken into account the length of the garden but it is narrow. The proposed development would significantly dominate the appearance of the rear of the host property. Although slightly shorter than the proposal the which is Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/17/3177971 2 the subject of an appeal in 20161, I share that Inspector’s concerns and consider that in this case the large extension would appear to be out of scale and would not be a subservient extension to the house. 6. The extension at 21A is large and not dissimilar in size to that in this proposal and I was able to see it on my site visit. The occupant of 21A has expressed support for the proposal before me. I have been referred to letters from the Council from 1998 and 2001, and two from 2002, to the owner of 21A concerning the extension. The later letters confirm that the extension does not have planning permission but that the Council was unlikely to take enforcement action. 7. In reaching my decision, I have attached some weight to the presence of the extension at 21A. However, I share the concerns of the previous Inspector that its existence does not justifying allowing development which is unsympathetic in scale and size related to the host property, which I consider the proposal before me would be. I have attached limited weight to the other examples of rear extensions referred to me. I do not have the details of those cases other than aerial photographs and in any event have determined this appeal on its merits and on the basis of the evidence before me. 8. For the reasons above I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and would be contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy which, amongst other things, requires alterations and extensions to existing buildings to provide good design and to ensure that the size, scale, and layout of development is appropriate to its location. The other policies referred to me by the Council do not add to its case. The proposed development would also be contrary to the guidance on rear extensions set out in the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. Other matters 9. The appellant maintains that Council’s planning officers and a councillor gave encouragement to the proposal at pre-applications stage. However this is not a matter for me in the determination of this appeal. Conclusion 10. The appellant has slightly shortened the proposal from the previous scheme. However I have found that it would still have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host property. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mike Worden INSPECTOR 1 APP/N4720/D/3154643