Proposed orangery extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 September 2018 by D Guiver LLB (Hons) Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3204870 6 Wells Mount, Guiseley, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS20 9AR  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 Miss L Rothera against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 18/01304/FU, dated 17 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 April 2018.  The development is described as proposed orangery extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Issues 2. Since the date of the Council’s decision, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (the Framework) has been published and has effect. Where Policies are consistent, I am satisfied that neither party would be prejudiced by my determining this decision in accordance with those Polices without seeking further comments. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the Guiseley Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site forms part of the Guiseley Conservation Area (the Conservation Area). I am mindful of my statutory duty, arising under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. 5. The appeal site comprises a back-to-back cottage located in a short block of six or so dwellings, with the houses at either end being similar in size and design to the appeal site. The block is one of four or so similar buildings constructed of stone and erected perpendicular to Wells Road. While a number of buildings in the area have small porches, the houses in the same elevation as the appeal site reflect the prevailing appearance and are largely unadorned with small front gardens as the principal amenity space. There is an additional area of garden to the side of the appeal site. The appeal site has an approximately 1.8-metre high timber fence on two sides, though there are gaps between the Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3204870 2 timbers that provide a restricted view of the front of the property. A third boundary is delineated by a relatively low wall and sparse vegetation forming the border with the garden to No. 4 Wells Mount. 6. The proposal is for the construction of a single-storey extension to the front of the property enclosing the existing entrance. The structure would be built largely of stone to match the host dwelling but would have a large window to the front elevation and doors at either end. The extension would stretch across roughly three quarters of the front elevation at ground-floor level and would have a hipped, dual pitched glass roof. The extension would provide additional living space at the appeal site. 7. However, the relatively small scale of the host dwelling would result in the additional structure having a disproportionate impact on the appearance of the host building and would be an incongruous addition to the area. The proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the symmetry of the building which is an important feature in the Conservation Area. 8. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposed development would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area that would lead to less than substantial harm. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposed development. 9. The appellant seeks additional space which would result in an improvement in the living conditions of occupiers of the host building. Such an improvement is an extremely modest benefit that would be insufficient to overcome the harmful effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits that might accrue from the provision of an additional housing unit. 10. Therefore, insofar as they are relevant, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies P10 and P11 of the Leeds Core Strategy 2014 and saved Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (the UDP), which together seek to ensure that developments respect and enhance existing buildings and the character and appearance of the area in which they are situated. The proposal would also not accord with Policy N19 of the UDP which seeks to ensure that developments preserve the character or appearance of conservation areas. Conclusion 11. Therefore, for the reasons given, and taking account of all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. D Guiver INSPECTOR