Two storey side extension; first floor rear extension; single storey rear extension; and new entrance door to front elevation without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 25/02788/FU, dated 4 August 2025

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 April 2026 by Ryan Cowley MPlan (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005749 1 Larkfield Drive, Rawdon, Leeds LS19 6EL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Michael Wigham against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 25/06342/FU. • The application sought planning permission for two storey side extension; first floor rear extension; single storey rear extension; and new entrance door to front elevation without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 25/02788/FU, dated 4 August 2025. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the Plans and Specifications above . • The reason given for the condition is: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Background, Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 2. The Council granted planning permission for a two-storey side extension, first floor rear extension and single storey rear extension at the appeal site in August 2025. This permission was subject to a condition (No 2) which seeks to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the list of approved plans. 3. The application sought to vary condition No 2 by substituting the approved plans with amended plans to provide a wider two storey side extension, re-position the front window and enlarge the rear ground floor window. The Council refused planning permission as it considered the extension as amended would fail to respect the character and appearance of the application site and the wider locality. 4. The main issue in this appeal is therefore the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Reasons 5. The site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Batter Lane and Larkfield Drive. The dwelling has various single and two storey offshoots that help to break up its overall mass in places and add interest to the design. It is situated centrally within the plot, with space on all sides to neighbouring properties. 6. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached house types of varying age. There are several examples of more Appeal Decision 6005749 2 spacious corner plots that add a greater sense of openness at the intersections between streets, with space between dwellings and mature landscaping providing a respite from the built development. 7. The Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) April 2012 advises that the proportions of two storey side extensions must respect the proportions of the house and generally not exceed two thirds of the width of the main house. The SPD recognises that the sense of space around some detached houses is often important to the character of an area and should be retained. 8. The proposed plans indicate that the width of the side extension as amended would not be greater than 2/3 of the full width of the existing house, including its existing side projections. However, individually these are relatively modest in their projection from the side elevation, and both are set back a considerable distance from the main front elevation. As a result, the full width of the existing dwelling, including the side projections, is not apparent in views from Lakefield Drive. 9. The width of the main front elevation, which sits closest to the road on Lakefield Drive and is prominent in the street scene, is thus an appropriate baseline from which to assess the comparative width of any significant side extensions. By this measurement, the proposed extension would be appreciably wider than 2/3 of the width of the main front elevation of the existing house. 10. The extension would be set back from the main front elevation, feature a lower ridge height than the main roof and maintain a gap to the neighbouring dwelling. Nevertheless, it would be a prominent addition to the street scene due to its considerable width, which would be emphasised by the significant gap between the existing and proposed windows in the front elevation. It would appear disproportionate and not subservient to the main dwelling, unbalancing the front elevation and reducing the sense of space. The expansive blank wall at first floor on the rear elevation would further accentuate its excessive width and bulkiness. 11. While the footprint of the dwelling as extended may represent 26% site coverage, the visual impact of an extension and whether it is of an appropriate size and design is not necessarily predicated on the amount of development on the site. Though the dwelling as extended would be no larger than the adjacent building, this comprises a pair of semi-detached dwellings, and it reads as such in the street scene. The dimensions and appearance of their extensions are commensurate to the respective host dwelling and so the impact of the adjacent building on the street scene is not comparable to that which would arise from the appeal scheme. 12. The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy P10 of the Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019) Amendments Adopted 11 September 2019, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and Policy R2 of the Rawdon Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) 2024 - 2028. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that new development is high quality and appropriate to its context, sensitively designed to respond to the setting of the site and reflect the local character of the surrounding area, and that alternations and extensions respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building. They also require proposals to have regard to the guidance prepared for the area. Appeal Decision 6005749 3 Other Matters 13. While I have not identified any harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, future occupiers or parking provision, this does not outweigh the identified harm and development plan conflict set out above. Conclusion 14. The development would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. Ryan Cowley INSPECTOR