Two storey side extension, single storey rear and full height glazed atrium to front entrance

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2018 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3214556 11 Dunstarn Gardens, Adel, Leeds LS16 8EJ  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 & Mrs Matt & Louise Cornell against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 18/03376/FU, dated 29 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 August 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension, single storey rear and full height glazed atrium to front entrance. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. As part of the appellant’s appeal submission, revised drawings have been provided. These seek to alter the scheme by replacing the proposed dormer windows with rooflights and re-siting of the side extension. While the plans were submitted to the Council, interested parties have not had the opportunity to consider such a proposal and the application was determined on the basis of the previously submitted plans. 3. I am mindful that the Procedural Guide – Planning Appeals – England advises that: ‘If an applicant thinks that amending their application proposals will overcome the local planning authority’s reasons for refusal they should normally make a fresh planning application’ (Annexe M.1.1). Further, if an appeal is made, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought (Annexe M.2.1). I am of the view that the Council and interested parties would be prejudiced if I accepted and determined the appeal in accordance with the revised drawings. I have therefore considered the scheme on the basis that it was determined by the Council. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the property and area, with particular reference to the proposed side extension; Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3214556 2  the living conditions of the occupiers of, No 14 Dunstarn Gardens, in particular with regards privacy, overshadowing and outlook; and,  the trees to the rear of the site. Reasons Effect on Character and Appearance 5. The appeal property is a detached brick build dwelling with a linked garage situated in a prominent position at the head of a cul-de-sac. While the houses and bungalows in the area are of a similar age, the design of the properties vary noticeably but are generally set within generous plots providing a clear set back from the road to the front and adjacent properties to the sides. 6. The proposed scheme would replace the existing single storey link and garage with a substantial structure, including accommodation in the roof space above the garage. The resulting development represents a significant and visually incongruous addition that, as a result of the significant mass of the proposal would not appear subordinate to the existing dwelling despite the step down in roof height and would introduce development adjacent to the boundary with No 14 Dunstarn Gardens. 7. By virtue of the significant scale and massing of the proposed extension in of itself and its close proximity to the boundary with No 14, I find that the proposed development would appear as a discordant feature that would fail to respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area. 8. The proposed extension is therefore contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy, Saved policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan, Policy HDG1 of the Householder Design Guide SPD and guidance set out in the Adel Neighbourhood Design Statement SPG. Which, collectively, expect development to provide a good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function; respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building; and resolve design as a detailed planning consideration. The proposal would also not comply with related design guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. Effect on Neighbours 9. The plans show new windows serving a kitchen, utility room and garage to the ground floor and an en-suite and a bedroom to the first floor. These windows would look directly on to the boundary with the adjacent property, No 14. 10. I observed at my site visit that the proposed first floor windows would look towards the dormer window in the side elevation of No 14 and otherwise the windows would look over the house and garden. The existing boundary treatment would afford some limited protection to the privacy of the occupiers of No 14 with regards the ground floor windows but not those from at the first floor. Consequently, I find that the proposed development would result in a significant loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 14. 11. The proposal would introduce significant development extending along the boundary to the north west of No 14. Be that as it may, I estimate that any overshadowing resulting from the proposed development is likely to be Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3214556 3 confined to the end of the garden at a time of day when existing buildings and trees are likely to also cause overshadowing of the garden of No 14. 12. Furthermore, the principle outlook from the dwelling and garden of No.14 is away from the appeal site and proposed development. Consequently, while the proposed development would be of a substantial scale and mass when viewed from the neighbouring property it would not resulting a significant detrimental impact on the outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of No 14. 13. The appellant has drawn my attention to planning consent that exists for extensions and alterations to No 14. At the time of my site visit it did not appear that any works had commenced on site and there is no guarantee that the planning permission will be implemented. As such I have determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence before me. 14. To conclude on this main issue, I find that the proposed development would not unacceptably impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 14 with regards outlook and overshadowing but would result in a significant loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 14 contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy, saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan and Policy HDG2 of the Householder Design Guide SPD. The proposal would also not comply with related guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. Effect on Trees 15. The appeal site and proposed extension is situated in close proximity to mature woodland to the rear boundary of the site. A Tree Report has been submitted in support of the appeal identifying details of the trees including the species and condition. However, the trees and root protection areas are not indicated alongside the proposed development. 16. From the evidence before me and my observations on site I estimate that the crowns of the trees situated adjacent to the site boundary extends towards and likely over part of the location where the proposed extension would be built. This would mean that roots are likely to be present within the footprint of the development. 17. I have had regard to the imposition of a condition requiring an Arboricultural Impact Assessment. However, without sufficient evidence that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm existing trees or that adequate mitigation measures are feasible, such a condition would not be reasonable. 18. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I cannot be certain that the development would not result in works which would harm the trees, particularly by way of damage or disturbance to their roots. The loss of, or harm to, the tree would harm the area’s character and appearance, the proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies P10 and P12 of the Leeds Core Strategy, saved Policies GP5, N8 and N24 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review that seek to protect trees and biodiversity. 19. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to Policy P8 of the Leeds Core Strategy which relates to sequential and impact assessments for main town centre uses. As such the policy is not relevant to the proposed development and I have not had regard to this policy in reaching my conclusion. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3214556 4 Other Matters 20. The appellant has provided details of planning permissions for various extensions to other properties in the area and at my site visit I spent some time observing the area. The presence of these extensions and consents do not however outweigh the harm identified above and each case must be judged on its own merits. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Brooker INSPECTOR