Two-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2019 by M Seaton DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3218102 2 Woodhouse Cliff, Leeds, LS6 2HF • 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 Martin Langfield against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref 18/03751/FU, dated 11 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2018. • The development proposed is a two-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The submitted evidence indicates that listed building consent for the proposed extension (LPA Ref. 18/03752/LI) was granted on 27 September 2018. In this respect, I note that the Council’s Conservation Team had not raised any objections to the design and form of the extension with regards its impact on the Grade II listed building to which it would be attached, or the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 3. However, the Council has maintained an objection on the basis of the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No. 1 Woodhouse Cliff, with particular regard had to the outlook and loss of light experienced at the neighbouring property. This is the main issue in this instance. Reasons 4. The appeal site is occupied by a three-storey Grade II listed dwelling set within a row of 4 terraced properties and located within the Conservation Area. The appeal property benefits from a long narrow front garden with a smaller rear garden leading on to a shared rear access. 5. The proposed two-storey rear extension would be a contemporary interpretation of the existing two-storey rear extensions on the adjoining properties at Nos. 3 & 4 Woodhouse Cliff. As with the existing extensions, the proposal would occupy approximately 50% of the width of the rear of the property and would extend from the rear elevation by the full extent of the garden area towards the rear access, in this case by 4.3 metres. 6. As a consequence of its overall scale and proximity to the boundary with No. 1 Woodhouse Cliff, the proposed extension would have a significant adverse Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3218102 2 impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring property, with the impacts not limited mainly to the appeal property alone as contended by the appellant. It is unlikely that the proposed extension would have any significant effect on sunlight given the predominantly north-facing rear elevation. However, from my observations the overall length and two-storey height and scale of the proposed extension would have an adverse effect on the existing outlook and daylight available to the rear ground floor habitable room of the neighbouring property, with the proposals appearing as an oppressive and overly dominant addition in the context of the existing level of amenity of the neighbouring property. This would lead to an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 7. The appellant has referred to the positioning of an existing red brick wall on the boundary between Nos. 1 & 2 Woodhouse Cliff, to existing trees, and that the proposed extension mirrors the existing extensions at Nos. 3 & 4 Woodhouse Cliff. However, I note that the existing wall, whilst increasing in height towards the rear elevation of the properties, does not extend to a comparable height to that of the neighbouring window, in contrast to the much greater height of the proposed extension. Furthermore, although I accept that the existing extensions have clearly been present for a considerable period of time, I do not regard this longevity as being a determinative factor for overriding the clear adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. This is particularly the case in the absence of any detail of the circumstances which led to the existence of the neighbouring extensions. 8. I have also noted the appellant’s reference to the absence of any objection to the proposed development, and indeed that a letter of support had been received. However, this is not a factor which would attract any weight in support of the proposals, which have been assessed specifically against the planning merits. 9. Based on the submitted evidence and my own observations, the proposed extension would fail to safeguard the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No. 1 Woodhouse Cliff, having regard to the effect on outlook and light. The proposal would therefore be contrary to saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), and the guidance set out within the Leeds Householder Design Guide Draft Supplementary Planning Document 2011. The saved policy and guidance seek to ensure that development proposals should resolve detailed planning considerations and avoid problems of loss of amenity, with particular care to be taken to two- storey extensions to ensure that they do not unreasonably over-shadow or over-dominate neighbouring properties. Conclusion 10. For the reasons as set out, the appeal is dismissed. INSPECTOR Martin Seaton