Two storey side and rear extension with increase in ridge height, integral garage and demolition existing garage, rooflights to front and rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by N Armstrong BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004023 3 West End Drive, Horsforth, Leeds LS18 5JR • 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 Robert Hudson of GNR Developments against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 25/06405/FU. • The development proposed is two storey side and rear extension with increase in ridge height, integral garage and demolition existing garage, rooflights to front and rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a detached, two-storey property within a predominantly residential area. The host property is modest in scale but sits within a relatively wide plot in comparison to others on West End Drive, which appears to have been largely cleared of trees and other vegetation. There is spacing to either side of the property, with a substantial gap between its side elevation and the side boundary with the neighbouring property at 5 West End Drive. A detached garage shown on the existing plans has been removed from the site. The host property is set back from and sits at a slightly elevated position above West End Drive, similar to other properties and their front building lines on the same side of the road in this area. There are also views to the rear of the host property and adjacent dwellings from a public footpath beyond the rear boundary of the appeal site. 4. There are a variety of house types along the full extent of West End Drive, although they predominantly comprise semi-detached two-storey properties either side of the road close to the appeal site and extending along this section, with a detached dwelling directly opposite the site. The two-storey side elevations of the semi- detached properties close to the appeal site are generally set off the boundaries, with some driveways to the sides, allowing for reasonable spacing between them, which contributes to the character of the area. Whilst Nos 5 and 7 West End Drive differ in appearance, there is some consistency regarding the scale, massing and design features of the properties in the immediate area of the appeal site, including white rendered walls, hipped roofs and two-storey bay frontages. The form of Appeal Decision 6004023 2 development on West End Drive in the area of the appeal site therefore contributes to a varied but coherent character. 5. Detached properties are more prevalent in groups situated further along West End Drive from the appeal site and they are evident in surrounding streets, although these also generally comprise plots that are smaller in width than the appeal site. There are variations of detached and semi-detached properties, scale, design and plot sizes of dwellings on West End Lane. These include some examples of larger detached properties and plot sizes in comparison to those on West End Drive within the immediate area of the appeal site. Therefore, whilst the appeal site is nearby, these two roads have differing characteristics. 6. The proposed development would result in substantial extensions to the host property that would significantly increase its overall footprint, width and height. There would be some elements of subservience with the set back of part of the proposed side extension from the front elevation and roof slope of the host property. The development would also retain and incorporate some design features of the host property and others in the immediate area, including the external chimneys, front bay windows and hipped roofs. 7. However, the development would not appear as a subordinate extension to the host property. The resultant scale and form of the proposed development would be a highly prominent and significant addition to the host property in this part of the street scene and in relation to the scale and form of surrounding development. The combination of the increased scale and massing of the proposal, along with the extent of its width across the plot, would also diminish the existing spacing to the boundary with the adjacent No 5. Despite the plot size, the overall development would appear out of scale and proportion with the form of the host property, it would appear discordant in the street scene and would not be sympathetic to local character. The proposal would therefore have a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. 8. I have also had regard to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (April 2012) that sets out general principles and advice on extensions. The proposed development would be set off the side boundary by 1 metre and would not create a terracing effect. However, for the above reasons, it would not respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality. 9. The Council’s first refusal reason and the officer report refer to proposed black windows as part of the development. Despite a similar reference in comments from a neighbouring resident, there does not appear to be anything within the application to suggest that black windows are proposed. Noting the appellant’s comments on this aspect, details of appropriate windows could be secured by condition were I minded to allow the appeal. 10. There are variations in front boundary treatments on West End Drive and in the surrounding area. Gates to access drives of properties on West End Drive and in the locality are not a prevalent feature, although where they exist, these typically consist of metal railing designs. Whilst the proposed plans indicate new gates to the pedestrian and vehicle access points, the detailed design and materials of these are not clear from the submissions. Notwithstanding this, details of a suitable design could also be secured by condition if the appeal was to be allowed. Appeal Decision 6004023 3 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of other development nearby at 17 West End Lane and in the wider area at 9 Lee Lane East. The detached property at 17 West End Lane occupies a wider plot in comparison to the properties either side of it. However, this is materially different in form and design to the proposed development, and features notable differences in the eaves and ridge heights of its various elements. As established above, West End Lane also comprises a more varied mix of plot sizes and house types in comparison to the character of West End Drive close to the appeal site. The property at 9 Lee Lane East is a considerable distance from the appeal site and therefore in a different site context to the proposal. The full details and circumstances under which these and other development in the area has taken place or been approved are also not before me. I therefore cannot draw any direct comparison from these with the proposed development that would weigh in its favour, and they do not justify the harm in this location. 12. I conclude that the development would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy P10 of the Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019) Leeds Local Plan (September 2019) and Policy BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to deliver high quality design, respect and enhance streets and buildings according to the local distinctiveness and wider setting of the place, respect the scale and form of the original building, and support proposals appropriate to its context. Other Matters 13. I have had regard to the appellant’s design objectives, aims to provide enhanced family living accommodation and to make more efficient use of the plot size. However, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development as proposed is the only way to achieve those objectives. In any event, the suggested benefits do not outweigh the significant weight I give to the identified harm or alter my conclusion on the main issue. 14. Where the proposal has been found to be acceptable in other respects, including the living conditions of neighbouring residents, parking and highway safety, and noting its location and proximity to services, these are neutral matters and do not weigh in favour of the development. Conclusion 15. Notwithstanding my findings in respect of the proposed windows and gates, for the above reasons the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. N Armstrong INSPECTOR