Two storey extension with canopy including new extended driveway to front; two storey and single storey rear extension and one new ground floor obscure glass window to side
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Residential Amenity
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 11 August 2025
by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 November 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
111 Hillcrest Rise, Leeds LS16 7DJ
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Stefan Christie against the decision of Leeds City Council.
The application Ref is 25/02413/FU.
The development proposed is two storey extension with canopy including new extended driveway to
front; two storey and single storey rear extension and one new ground floor obscure glass window to
side.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Stefan Christie against Leeds City
Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The description of the development provided on the planning application form has
been replaced by an amended version on the decision notice and in subsequent
appeal documents. I consider that subsequent description to accurately represent
the proposal and I have therefore used it within this decision.
4. The appellant has requested that I consider this appeal on the basis of an amended
scheme with an asymmetric primary elevation. Although this may reduce the
massing of the proposal and the effect on neighbouring properties, this would
nevertheless be more than a minor amendment to the proposal. Although
interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the original plans at the
application stage, the appeal was progressed via the fast track written
representations procedure as set out in the Council’s appeal notification letter,
which means that no further comments could be made on an amended scheme.
5. The amended plans are substantively different from the scheme which formed the
basis of the planning application, and if I was to determine this appeal on the basis
of the amended plans then this would be procedurally unfair to interested parties.
The ‘Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England’ also advises that an appeal
should not be used to evolve a scheme. I have therefore proceeded to determine
this appeal on the basis of the plans which were submitted with the application and
which were considered by the Council and interested parties at the application
stage.
Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
2
6. I have considered 2 other appeals1 on the same site. Although there may be some
issues in common between these appeals and therefore some repetition in my
decisions, I have dealt with them as separate decisions due to the individual
circumstances of each proposal.
7. In relation to this appeal and others on the site, it was requested that I view the
appeal site from the neighbouring properties of 109 and 113 Hillcrest Rise, and I
was able to do so on my visit.
Main Issues
8. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the:
Living conditions of residents of Nos 109 and 113 with regards to outlook and
light; and
Character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscene.
Reasons
Living Conditions
9. The appeal site is a detached dwelling with a generous front garden and a long
garden extending to the rear. Based on evidence provided in respect of other
appeals on the site which are also before me, the dwelling previously had a
conservatory and garage both of which extended beyond the main rear elevation.
10. The two storey extension to the front of the dwelling would be located close to the
boundary with No 109 and would project forward of the main front elevation of the
neighbouring dwelling. Due to its projection, proximity and massing, the flank wall
of the front extension would be a stark and oppressive feature in views from the
nearest windows and part of the front garden of No 109. This would be the case
even allowing for the angle of view from the front windows, and moreover there is a
bay window to the side of No 109 which would be particularly affected. For the
same reasons the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of light and
overshadowing to the side window of No 109.
11. The proposed rear extensions would also project beyond the main rear elevation of
No 109 closest to the appeal site. In a similar way as the front extensions, due to
the projection and massing of the rear extensions and the proximity with the
boundary of No 109, the proposal would appear as an obtrusive and overbearing
feature in views from the rear garden of No 109 and the ground floor windows of
rooms which face onto the extension.
12. In respect of light, the appellant has provided a shading diagram which indicates
that overshadowing to the rear of No 109 would be limited to before 11:30am.
However, this would still lead to loss of sunlight over a significant part of the day at
certain times of year. The Council also use a 45o code as a useful way of assessing
the impact of an extension on neighbouring properties. Based on the evidence
before me, the rear extensions (including the 2-storey element) would project into
the 45o area taken from the nearest edge of the closest rear-facing window of No
109. Based on what I have seen and read, the proposal would lead to an
unacceptable loss of light to the rear of No 109 as well as loss of outlook, and the
1
Appeal Refs: APP/N4720/D/25/3364066 and APP/N4720/D/25/3365055
Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
3
appellant’s shading diagrams do not lead me to a different conclusion. These
negative effects would be exacerbated due to the sloping topography of the rear
gardens.
13. Both the front and rear extensions would also be apparent from No 113. However,
the extensions would have a greater separation from the boundary compared to
No 109, and I consider that this would mitigate the effect of the proposal on the
outlook and levels of light of No 113. Although there is a window on the side
elevation of No 113, this is a secondary high level window with obscured glazing,
and given that the room is also served by large patio doors on the rear elevation
then the impact on the side window would not be sufficient to warrant the refusal of
planning permission.
14. Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of No 113, I conclude that the proposal
would lead to significant harm to the living conditions of residents of No 109 due to
loss of outlook and light. The proposal would therefore conflict with the amenity
considerations of Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy 2014 (the Core Strategy)
as well as Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006
(UDP). The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework) which seeks to secure a high standard of amenity.
The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the Householder Design
Guide 2012 with regards to the protection of the amenity of neighbours.
Character and Appearance
15. The appeal dwelling is of an understated suburban appearance representative of
the character of the area, although there is a wide variety in the design and layout
of dwellings within the streetscene. Due to the arrangement and design of buildings
there is not a particularly strong building line or a homogeneity of design within the
wider streetscape.
16. The 2-storey front extension would not project as far forward as the main front
elevation of No 113. Within that context, it would not appear as an unacceptable
projection within the streetscene.
17. However, the extension would be set over 2-storeys projecting across the full width
of the front elevation and would use a double gable roof. The scale of the extension
would be an obtrusive feature projecting to the front of the dwelling, overwhelming
the host building in views from Hillcrest Rise. The double gable roof is also not
representative of this area, and even though these gables would be set below the
main ridge of the roof, this roof design would add to the clumsy and jarring
appearance of the front extension. Even given the variety of designs in the area
and the variation in the building line, the scale and design of the front extension
would appear as an incongruous feature dominating the front of the property.
18. The Council also refer to the scale and design of the front canopy. However, given
the variety of designs in the area and the scale of the host dwelling, this canopy
would not be of an incongruous appearance.
19. The Council has not raised concerns in respect of the character and appearance of
the rear extension. Although the rear extension is of a similar scale and design as
the front extension, including a double gable roof, the rear elevation of the dwelling
is not particularly prominent in views from the public realm. On that basis, I
Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
4
conclude that the rear extension would not lead to undue harm regarding character
and appearance.
20. Notwithstanding my conclusions on the canopy and the rear extension, I conclude
that, due to its scale and design, the proposed front extension would lead to
significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the
streetscene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the design requirements
of Policy P10 of the Core Strategy and Policies BD6 and GP5 of the UDP. The
proposal would also be contrary to the Framework which seeks to achieve well-
designed places. The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the HDG in
respect of design and appearance.
Other Matters
21. The Council indicates that the rear extension would benefit from permitted
development rights and it has therefore not objected to this element of the proposal
in respect of the main issues. This rear extension is severable from the other
elements and I have considered whether a ‘split’ decision could be issued.
22. However, I have identified harm to the living conditions of a neighbouring property
arising from the rear extension. Were I to allow this element of the proposal, I
cannot be certain that this extension would benefit from permitted development
rights at the time of its construction given other potential extensions that have been
referred to and which may be constructed under the property’s permitted
development rights. Furthermore, I have not made any determination in law as to
whether the rear extension would be classed as permitted development, and this
matter is more appropriately addressed through the consideration of a Lawful
Development Certificate. I have therefore proceeded to determine this appeal
giving full consideration of the effects of the rear extension.
Conclusion
23. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.
David Cross
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 11 August 2025
by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 November 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
111 Hillcrest Rise, Leeds LS16 7DJ
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr Stefan Christie for a full award of costs against Leeds City Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for two storey extension with canopy
including new extended driveway to front; two storey and single storey rear extension and one new
ground floor obscure glass window to side.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is partially allowed in the terms set out below.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application for costs was submitted as part of the Grounds of Appeal relating to
the appeal set out in the above heading. However, the costs application refers to
2 other appeals1 even though the respective Appeal Forms state that a costs
application had not been made. Nevertheless, the other appeals have been
referred to in further evidence submitted and I have had regard to them
accordingly.
3. The appellant also submitted a Costs Addendum in relation to the appeal in the
above heading. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment and I have
had regard to the comments made.
Reasons
Initial Costs Application
4. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) advises that costs may be awarded
against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
5. A particular concern of the appellant is the refusal of the Council to accept
amended plans as part of its consideration of the proposals. They consider that the
Council was overly dogmatic in applying its Householder Applications Protocol (the
Householder Protocol). In response, the Council sets out that where applications
require ‘minor’ amendments then the Householder Protocol enables revised plans
to be submitted.
1 Appeal Refs: APP/N4720/D/25/3364066 and APP/N4720/D/25/3365055
Costs Decision APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
2
6. Within that context, the amendments referred to by the appellant go beyond what
could be considered to be minor. This assessment includes the effects on
neighbouring residents and whether they should be given the opportunity to
comment. Even if an amendment may be an improvement, interested parties
should still be given the opportunity to comment prior to a decision being made.
This is most suitably done through a new planning application in the case of
householder applications due to the scope of that procedure and the timescale for
decisions. Although changes may be minor in respect of the time taken using a
CAD system, it is the material effect of an amendment that determines if it is minor
rather than the time taken to draw it. I therefore do not conclude that the Council
has behaved unreasonably with regard to its implementation of the Householder
Protocol.
7. The appellant also refers to the Council’s Housing Design Guide (HDG) which they
consider to be out of date in respect of the consideration of permitted development
and prior approvals. However, even though parts of the proposals may represent
permitted development, the permitted development right may be lost if other
development takes place. There is therefore no certainty that the elements referred
to would benefit from permitted development rights at the time of their construction.
It is therefore appropriate for the Council to consider the planning applications as a
whole, and this also reflects the approach I have taken in my Appeal Decisions.
Consideration of permitted development rights and prior approvals are therefore
more appropriately addressed on a case by case basis, and within that context I do
not consider that the Council has behaved unreasonably in referring to the HDG.
8. The appellant expresses concern about the Council’s pre-application procedures
and that multiple proposals will require separate fees. However, even if a
comprehensive proposal is made up of different elements, it has not been
demonstrated that the Council would not consider it as a whole through the pre-
application process. The evidence suggests that the appellant’s concerns on this
issue reflect the incremental nature of the multiple proposals that have been
prepared rather than the Councils pre-application process.
9. Reference is also made to the Council’s failure to share feedback on the planning
application or its other concerns. However, based on the evidence before me, the
Council’s feedback on the proposals has been made available to the appellant and
they have been able to respond.
10. The appellant refers to wider concerns in respect of the Council’s performance in
determining applications and the effect on its fee income. However, given my
conclusions above as well as those of the Appeal Decisions, the Council’s
decisions are based on valid planning considerations.
Costs Addendum
11. The submitted Addendum includes concerns relating to the unreasonable release
of late and incomplete evidence by the Council which has necessitated the re-
working of the appellant’s response to public feedback and the submission of a
further response. These concerns relate to the Council’s behaviour over the course
of the planning application as well as the appeal.
12. Although costs can only be awarded in relation to unnecessary or wasted expense
at the appeal, behaviour and actions at the time of the planning application can be
taken into account in the consideration of whether or not costs should be awarded.
Costs Decision APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
3
13. The appellant has referred to difficulties in obtaining comments made on the
planning application during the consideration of the planning application and
appeal. In response, the Council sets out that, due to GDPR2 concerns, it no longer
publishes public comments online. Instead, they are summarised in officer reports,
and full comments are only disclosed via FOI3 or EIR4 requests.
14. It is for the Council to decide the process for making information available, and
given the formal and clearly defined processes set out by the Council I do not
consider that its reliance on these processes represents unreasonable behaviour.
15. However, the Guidance sets out types of behaviour which may give rise to a
procedural award of costs against a local planning authority. This includes delays in
providing information or only supplying relevant information at appeal when it was
previously requested, but not provided, at application stage. It is apparent from
evidence5 provided by the appellant that, due to the extent of redactions, the public
comments provided to them at the application stage did not provide them with
relevant information to assess the comments and consider how to proceed. This
contrasts with the public comments provided by the Council as part of the appeal
process which were presented in a suitable form, albeit with appropriate redactions.
Even then, the comments provided with the Council’s Questionnaire were curtailed,
and it was only as a result of the appellant following up this matter that the
complete public comments were provided by the Council.
16. The failure of the Council to provide public comments in an acceptable format at
the application stage meant that the appellant only had access to the complete
public comments following the submission of the appeal, and even then this was
subject to delay. This unreasonable behaviour has led to extra expense to the
appellant in addressing these comments as part of the appeal process.
17. The appellant’s Addendum also refers further to the Householder Protocol. But this
does not lead me to a different conclusion on the Council’s behaviour with regard to
the Protocol, which I have previously concluded was reasonable.
Conclusion
18. In respect of the appellant’s Initial Costs Application, unreasonable behaviour
resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred in respect of the
appeal in the heading above as well as the 2 other appeals referred to.
19. However, regarding the Costs Addendum in respect of the appeal described in the
heading to this decision, the Council’s delays in providing information or only
supplying relevant information at appeal when it was previously requested, but not
provided, at application stage represents unreasonable behaviour. This has led to
extra expense to the appellant in addressing this information as part of the appeal
process. A partial award of costs is therefore justified.
Costs Order
20. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972
and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all
other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Leeds City
2 General Data Protection Regulations
3 Freedom of Information
4 Environmental Information Regulations
5 E-mail and attachments to Cllr Barry Anderson dated 14 July 2025
Costs Decision APP/N4720/D/25/3368035
4
Council shall pay to Mr Stefan Christie, the costs of the appeal proceedings
described in the heading of this decision limited to those costs incurred in
addressing delays in providing information or only supplying relevant information at
appeal when it was previously requested, but not provided, at application stage;
such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
21. The applicant is now invited to submit to Leeds City Council, to whom a copy of this
decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as
to the amount.
David Cross
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.