First storey rear extension, single storey front extension, loft conversion with dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2018 by T A Wheeler BSc (Hons) T&RP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3207002 49 Alwoodley Lane, Alwoodley, Leeds LS177PU  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 and Mrs Amirahmadi against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref: 18/01967/FU, dated 22 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 May 2018.  The development proposed is a first storey rear extension, single storey front extension, loft conversion with dormer. Decision The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first storey rear extension, single storey front extension, and loft conversion with dormer at 49 Alwoodley Lane, Alwoodley, Leeds LS23 6LD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/01967/FU dated 22 March 2018, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 1:1250 scale Location Plan; M2704/01/101 Existing Floors, Elevations, Site and Section; M2704/04/102 Rev B Proposed Floors, Elevations, Site & Section. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking or re- enacting that order with or without modification) the bathroom and toilet windows within the first floor side elevation approved under this planning permission shall be glazed with obscured glass to at least level 3 obscurity and thereafter retained as such. 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that order with or without modification) planning permission shall be obtained before any windows are inserted in the side elevation of the first floor extension or second floor attic room approved under this planning permission. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3207002 2 Preliminary Matter 1. Work has commenced on the first floor rear extension and loft conversion with dormer. These works are authorised under planning permission ref 18/00523/FU dated 21 March 2018. The appeal relates to the proposals as described in the 22 March 2018 application. The proposals include the insertion of two windows in the side elevation facing 51 Alwoodley Lane. The insertion of these side windows had not taken place at the time of my site visit. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed single storey front extension on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The proposed single storey front extension would project forward of the main existing front elevation of the appeal property by 2.0m. It would have a pitched roof similar in design to the roof on the two storey front facing bay. Other architectural details from the existing property would be carried through in the design of the front extension. The application plans state that the materials would match the existing dwelling, which has rendered walls and tile roofs. The extension is therefore well designed to blend with the existing property. 4. The issue in relation to character and appearance is whether the extension, by virtue of the proposed projection from the main front wall of the appeal property, would appear incongruous in relation to the property and the wider street scene. The surrounding area is comprised mainly of detached and semi- detached two storey properties of various ages. Most have good sized gardens and mature landscaping. The immediate area is characterised by white rendered properties with tile roofs, no 49 being a typical example. 5. Views of the proposed single storey front extension would be substantially screened by existing landscaping. On the east side of the property there is a Leylandii hedge which screens the site from the public footpath running between Alwoodley Lane and Lakeland Crescent. This hedge would largely screen any views of the single storey extension when approaching along Alwoodley Lane from the east. There are trees within the front garden of the appeal property, and also a single tree within the highway verge, which would filter views of the single storey extension when approaching along Alwoodley Lane from the west. These trees are not evergreen but would still perform a filtering effect in winter when not in leaf. 6. The extension would be clearly visible from Alwoodley Lane when on the section of footway in front of the property. However, from here the length of the extension would not be unduly prominent and would not detract from the visual appearance of the property or surrounding area. Further factors which should be taken into account are the slight fall in level between Alwoodley Lane and the front of the appeal property and the low stone front boundary wall and railings, both of which would lessen the visual impact of the proposed single storey extension when viewed from the street. 7. In its reason for refusal, the Council has referred to guideline HGD1 of the House Holder Design Guide (HDG) and generally to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) on issues of Good Design. The HDG provides Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3207002 3 applicants with advice on how to meet with the requirements of the development plan policies relevant to such proposals. On single storey front extensions, the guidance states that very small front extensions may be acceptable and particular attention should be paid to the building line. It states that front extensions may be acceptable where there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area. For the reasons given above, I find that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area and therefore the proposals comply with both the Framework and the HDG. 8. Accordingly, the appeal proposals would comply with policies P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy 2014 and Policies BD6 and GP5 of the retained Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 and the Alwoodley Neighbourhood Plan. 9. Therefore, with regard to the issue effects of on the character and appearance of the area, I conclude that the appeal proposals are acceptable. Conditions 10. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary as this provides certainty. I have imposed a condition specifying materials as this is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. 11. The appeal proposals do not include any first floor side windows which overlook neighbouring properties, other than two windows serving a bathroom and a toilet. Whilst such windows are likely to be obscured glazed, a condition is required to ensure this obscured glazing is not replaced with clear glazing at some future time. The future insertion of side windows in the first floor bedroom extension, or second floor attic room, could overlook the neighbouring property at 51 Alwoodley Lane. A condition is therefore necessary to require approval of such changes. These conditions are the same as those attached by the Council to planning permission 18/00523/FU with a minor amendment to condition no 5 to specify those extensions in relation to which the future insertion of windows would require a further planning permission. Conclusions 12. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in the Decision above. Tim Wheeler INSPECTOR