2 storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by Andrew McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/17/3183632 44 Holmwood Drive, Meanwood, Leeds LS6 4NF  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 Matthew Pank against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/03459/FU, dated 2 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 August 2017.  The development proposed is 2 storey extension. 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 surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two storey detached dwelling on a corner plot at the junction of Holmwood Drive and Holmwood View. The property is located within an established residential estate which consists of detached and semi- detached houses and dormer bungalows of a similar age, size and appearance. These are predominantly set on well-proportioned, landscaped plots which provide front and rear gardens of a good size. 4. The immediate area surrounding and including the appeal property on the northern side of Holmwood Drive is characterised by properties that are set back from the public highway by a similar distance. As such, they form a regular building line within the streetscene. The elevations of these properties which face Holmwood Drive are separated from the highway by landscaped gardens and hedges. Furthermore, these properties are slightly elevated above the highway due to the topography of the local area. 5. Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy (CS) relates to proposals being of a good design which respect their context and are appropriate to their surroundings. Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (UDPR) states that development proposals should positively addressing planning considerations, including the impact on surroundings in terms of design. Furthermore, Policy HDG1 of the Leeds Householder Design Guide (HDG) sets out that all extensions, additions and alterations should respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of their host properties and that of the locality. Where proposals fail to do this, they should be resisted. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/17/3183632 2 6. The Council states that the proposed development would disrupt the existing pattern of development in the area and due to its scale and its position it would have a greater presence within the streetscene than its neighbouring properties. The appellant argues that the proposed extension would have no impact on amenity or highway safety or result in any environmental intrusion. In addition, it is stated that its scale and massing would not be excessive within its plot and the appellant identifies other properties in the area which have been extended in a similar way to that proposed. Furthermore, the appellant points out that no objections to the scheme have been raised by neighbouring occupiers. 7. From what I have seen and read, I find that the proposed extension would be a substantial addition to the streetscene which, due to its scale and massing, would not be subservient to the host property. Furthermore, I note that its ridge height would match that of the existing property. As a result, I find that the proposed extension would be excessive in terms of scale and massing, particularly when viewed from Holmwood Drive. In addition, the proposed extension would result in the property’s principal elevation facing Holmwood Drive being unduly prominent and highly visible from either direction along the street. It would also move the property forward of other adjacent properties along the building line which would have a detrimental impact on the overall pattern of development in the area. 8. I appreciate the appellant’s argument that the proposal would have no material impact on resident amenity and highway safety. However, whilst I note this, I find that the prominent and dominate appearance of the proposed extension within in the wider streetscene of Holmwood Drive, in terms of its scale and massing, would clearly outweigh these matters. 9. The appellant argues that other properties in the area have been extended in a similar way to the proposal. Accordingly, I have had particular regard to the properties at the corner of Holmwood Drive and Holmwood Avenue, opposite the appeal property, and at the corner of Holmwood Drive and Sunset Avenue. As I do not have the full details of these other extensions before me, I give only limited weight to them in the determination of this appeal. Nonetheless, I note that the property opposite the appeal site is positioned at an angle on its plot. As a result, in my view, the extension to that property does not impact on the streetscene and established building line in such a prominent and visible way as the proposed extension would. 10. The appellant makes the point that the proposal has attracted no objections from neighbouring occupiers or any other surrounding parties. Whilst I note this, the lack of objection does not automatically result in an acceptable proposal. The proposed development must be assessed against relevant policy and on its own merits and circumstances with any material considerations, such as objections, or a lack of them, being taken into account. Accordingly, I confirm that this is the approach I have taken in determining this appeal. 11. The proposed development would provide additional accommodation to the appeal property which would be to the benefit of the appellant who resides there. In addition, the scheme would be within an established residential area and would use materials to match the existing property. Notwithstanding this, the scale and massing of the proposed extension and its prominent position in the streetscene would have a significant adverse effect on the character and Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/17/3183632 3 appearance of its surroundings. Moreover, it would appear incongruous within the streetscene and would not be in keeping with the prevailing pattern of development. Therefore, having carefully considered all of the above, I find that the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified. 12. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy, saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review, Policy HDG1 of the HDG and the relevant guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that development respects, and is appropriate to, its context and has no significant adverse impact on its surroundings. Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR