Loft conversion, raised gable and rear dormer, retention of existing dormer as built

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 October 2018 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3210745 34 Henconner Lane, Chapel Allerton, Leeds, LS7 3NX • 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 C Benoit-Pool against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref 18/02531/FU, dated 19 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2018. • The development proposed is a loft conversion, raised gable and rear dormer, retention of existing dormer as built. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The development the subject of the appeal has already taken place. 3. A different development to that the subject of this appeal was granted planning permission in 20171. This proposal included two dormer windows – rather than the single dormer that forms part of the development the subject of this appeal. The Council states that “the side gable extension was approved in 2017 and this permission is still extant. Therefore, the gable extension is not objected to in this instance.” 4. Whilst the appellant refers to Building Regulations approval for the development, I note that Building Regulations and planning permission are two different and separate things. Main Issue 5. The main issues in this case are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two storey semi detached dwelling located in a residential area. Surrounding houses on Henconner Lane in this area largely comprise similar semi detached dwellings with hipped roofs. The appeal property, like its neighbours along the street, has a short garden and parking area to the front and a short garden to the rear. 1 Ref: 17/03005/FU. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3210745 2 7. Zermatt Grove lies across a narrow lane to the rear of Henconner Lane and as a consequence, the appeal property is located relatively close to a long terrace of houses along Zermatt Grove. 8. The appeal property is located within the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area, characterised by rows of dwellings, including terraces of “artisan housing” – streets of period properties where similar features, including small dormers, tall chimneys and bay windows combine with a regularity of form and common use of brick and slate, to provide for a strong and attractive sense of uniformity. The spacing and similar appearance of semi detached dwellings along Henconner Lane contribute to this sense of uniformity. 9. The development the subject of this appeal comprises a large box dormer. It is set down only very slightly from the ridge of the roof and extends across the majority of the appeal property’s roof slope, reaching close to the eaves. As such, it appears as a very large, “heavy” and boxy feature which unduly dominates the appearance of the appeal property from the rear. 10.The harm arising from the development is exacerbated as a result of it appearing prominently in views along Zermatt Grove, from which it stands out as an incongruous feature, out of keeping with the appearance of neighbouring dwellings. Further, I find that the development detracts significantly from the over-riding sense of uniformity otherwise prevalent within this part of the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area. 11.Whilst I noted during my site visit that, to some degree, a roof extension to the side of Number 36 Henconner Lane upsets the sense of uniformity along Henconner Lane’s roofscape, that extension does not appear as ungainly, boxy or dominant as the development the subject of this appeal. 12.Taking the above into account, I consider that the development harms the character and appearance of the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), to Leeds Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012) policy P10 and P11, to Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (UDP) (2006) Policies GP5, BD6 and N19, and to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, protect local character. 13.Rather than make the positive contribution desired by paragraph 192 of the Framework, the development harms local character. The harm caused is significant in terms of the immediate context of the development, but is less than substantial in the context of the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area as a whole. In these circumstances, paragraph 195 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against any public benefit. 14.The development does not result in any public benefits that outweigh the identified harm to the Chapel Allerton Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. Other Matters 15.In support of his case, the appellant refers to other similar dormers within Conservation Areas elsewhere, as having been allowed. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that all of the circumstances Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3210745 3 relating to these other developments are the same as the circumstances relating to that the subject of this appeal, such that they provide for direct comparison. Notwithstanding this, I have found that the development the subject of this appeal would result in significant harm and this is not a matter that is mitigated or reduced by the presence of other forms of development elsewhere. 16.The appellant, in support of his case, refers to an absence of objection to, and letters of support for, the development. However, I have found above that the development would result in harm to a heritage asset and this is not a factor outweighed by letters of support for it. I also note that the absence of objection to a development could be for any number of reasons and does not in itself, equate to the same thing as support. 17.The appellant, in support of his case, refers to UDP Policy GP5. I note that, whilst the Council might consider that the development does not result in loss of amenity, it clearly sets out its case in respect of the development’s impact on design. UDP Policy GP5 is concerned with both amenity and design, amongst other things. Conclusion 18.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR