Single story rear extension and porch to front with boundary wall and gate and drop kerb

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by N Armstrong BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008752 69 South Parkway, Seacroft, Leeds LS14 6TZ • 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 Mohammed Hamzhe Alizadhe against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 26/01131/FU. • The development proposed is single story rear extension and porch to front with boundary wall and gate and drop kerb. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The proposed development includes elements that do not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal, nor does the Council identify any conflict with the development plan in relation to these aspects of the development. Following my site visit, I see no reason to disagree. Therefore, the focus of my assessment is the proposed porch and rear extension, as set out on the Council’s decision notice. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the area, with particular regard to the proposed porch extension; and • the living conditions of the occupiers at 67 South Parkway, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling to one end of a short terrace of four properties, situated in a prominent position fronting the street within a predominantly residential area. Despite variations in the form and appearance of front boundary treatments, the terraced properties have similar design characteristics in terms of their overall scale and appearance, which provides a degree of consistency to the street scene. Where there are variations to the front elevations, these are generally limited to modest ground floor bay windows and canopy detailing to some front elevations. These characteristics are also reflected on other properties in surrounding streets. From my observations on site, front Appeal Decision 6008752 2 extensions to properties are not prevalent in the immediate or surrounding area, including to more modern housing development nearby. 5. Whilst the porch would not extend significantly across the width of the host property, due to the scale of its projection beyond the front elevation, it would appear as a relatively large extension to the front of the property. This would be a discordant addition, out of scale and character with the existing property and would have a detrimental visual impact to the front of the property and the terrace. The adverse visual impact would be exacerbated by its prominent position in the street scene and the absence of similar extensions within the terrace and in the surrounding area. Consequently, the porch would not respect the form and appearance of the host property or development in the locality, and it would be at odds with the established character of the area. 6. For these reasons, the proposed porch extension would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies BD6 and GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (the UDP) and Policy P10 of the Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019) Leeds Local Plan (the CS). Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to respect the scale and form of the original building, the character of surrounding buildings and streets that make up the wider locality, and provide good design appropriate to its location. Living conditions 7. I viewed the appeal site from the front and rear garden areas of the host property, as well as from the adjoining mid-terraced property at 67 South Parkway. The rear extension would project 4 metres from the rear elevation of the host property and would be set slightly off the boundary with No 67, which features a close boarded timber fence. The submitted plans show that the highest part of the extension would be set slightly below the first floor windows of the host property, sloping down towards the rear elevation of the extension. 8. Having regard to its siting, depth and height, the proposed rear extension would introduce a large and bulky structure close to and extending along the boundary with No 67 and its modest sized garden area. The nearest window to the boundary in the rear elevation of No 67 is obscure glazed and serves a non-habitable storage area. A rear door with obscure glazing to its upper section, and a kitchen window with obscure glazing, which reduces the outlook from this opening, are set further away from the side boundary. 9. Despite the proposed depth and height of the extension, given the relationship with the nearest openings and the position of the kitchen window, I do not find that the development would result in significant adverse effects on the outlook from these areas. However, the combination of the depth, height and solid wall of the extension would appear as a large, overbearing form of development and significant enclosure, close to the boundary for occupiers of No 67 in views from their rear garden. Consequently, this would have an adverse effect on their outlook from this area and the enjoyment of this space. From the information before me and my observations on site, the proposed development would be larger in scale than the existing boundary fence between the properties. I am not persuaded that the adverse effect arising from the siting and scale of the extension would be adequately mitigated by the fence. Appeal Decision 6008752 3 10. The proposed porch extension would be constructed on the boundary with No 67, and in close proximity to its front door, with a bay window serving the living room beyond this. The main outlook from the bay window is over the front garden area of No 67, with more oblique views towards the appeal site from its main and side windows. Notwithstanding my findings on character and appearance, due to the position of the bay window in relation to the boundary and the scale of the porch, I do not consider this would result in significant or unacceptable effects on outlook for the neighbouring occupants. Furthermore, whilst it would be close to the front entrance of No 67, I am not persuaded the proposed extent of enclosure in this area would be unacceptable for the neighbouring occupants. 11. Whilst I do not find harm arising from the porch extension on this main issue, for the above reasons, the proposed rear extension would have an unduly harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers at No 67, with particular regard to outlook. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy GP5 of the UDP and Policy P10 of the CS, which amongst other things, aim for proposals to avoid loss of amenity and to protect amenity. Other Matters 12. I have had regard to the appellant’s comments regarding heating of the family home in winter and their aims to improve the accommodation, heat retention and reduce associated costs. However, I am not satisfied that this development is the only way to achieve those objectives. In any event, the reasons provided do not outweigh or justify the harm I have identified or alter my conclusions. 13. Where the proposed development has been found to be acceptable in other respects, including improved on-site parking provision, this also does not justify or outweigh the identified harm in this instance. Conclusion 14. Although I do not find that there would be harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents from the porch extension, there would be harm from this on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and there would be harm from the rear extension on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, 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