Raising the roof height forming a new floor, dormer window to rear with juliette balcony and roof light to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by Mark Harrison BA(Hons) DipTP LLM MIoL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010795 11 Birchfield Avenue, Gildersome, Morley, Leeds LS27 7HU • 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 Mark Chadwick against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 26/01913/FU. • The development proposed is raising the roof height forming a new floor, dormer window to rear with juliette balcony and roof light to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs has been made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. This introduced national decision-making policies to which I have had regard in making my decision. Given that policy relevant to this case has remained largely unchanged I have not considered it necessary to seek further comments from the main parties. Where the appellant’s case referred to the previous version of the Framework, I have applied the new policy. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwellinghouse with a single-storey side and rear extension. It is located at the turning head of a small cul-de-sac and neighbouring properties are broadly similar in respect of height, design and materials. Whilst many of the properties have been extended to the sides or rear, their roof profiles are modest and consistent. 6. The proposal would increase the ridge height and the pitch of the roof significantly above its existing form. It would create a roof form that appears disproportionate to neighbouring properties. The steepened pitch and increased ridge height of the appeal property’s roof would cause harm to the streetscape by disrupting the harmony of the existing consistent roof profile of the cul-de-sac. Whilst the appeal Appeal Decision 6010795 2 property is not located within a conservation area or subject to any special designations, it is nevertheless incumbent on development proposals to be well designed and respond to the character of its setting. 7. Although at the rear and consequently largely screened from public views, the scale of the proposed box dormer is significant, extending across nearly the full width of the roof, and would dominate the rear roofscape. It would form an incongruous addition, creating a bulky top-heavy appearance which would harm the appeal property due to its lack of subservience, contrary to the requirements of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2012). 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to a previous part-implemented planning permission at the appeal property for a single storey side and rear extension and alterations to roof, including raising roof height and dormer to rear. The ground floor extension was subsequently constructed, but the permitted roof alterations were not. This permission was validly commenced by the construction of the ground floor extension and the unimplemented part of the scheme, the roof alterations, therefore has the benefit of extant planning permission. 9. Given that this is an extant planning permission, I conclude that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that it might be implemented. Therefore, this represents a fallback position, which is a material consideration in determining this appeal. 10. Whilst the fallback position would allow for raising the roof height and a rear dormer, there are significant differences between it and the appeal proposal. Under the extant permission the ridge height of the roof would be raised significantly less, resulting in a shallower pitch, and the dormer would be smaller with a greater set in from the edges of the roof. I therefore give moderate weight to the fallback position because of these material differences. 11. The fallback position, if constructed, would result in the roof height of the appeal property being higher than that of neighbouring dwellings, thus disrupting the consistent roof profile of the streetscape. However, the appeal proposal represents a materially more dominant form of development that would be significantly more impactful on the street scene and draw more attention to the disparity between the roof form of the appeal property and its neighbours. In particular, the height and steepness of the raised roof and the bulk and massing of the rear dormer. 12. Policy L2 of the Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development proposal would, amongst other things, create additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential premises. However, such proposals should be consistent with the overall street scene. In this case, I have found that the proposed development would not be consistent with the street scene, due to the height and steepness of the roof. 13. Whilst Class AA of the General Permitted Development Order promotes the upward extension of dwellings, it does not represent a fallback position specifically in relation to the appeal proposal. A condition of Class AA is that the roof pitch of the principal part of the dwelling following the development must be the same as the existing roof pitch. The appeal proposal would result in a significant change in the pitch of the roof. Appeal Decision 6010795 3 14. Despite the existence of the fallback position of the extant permission for alterations to the roof, all proposals must be assessed on their own merits. I find that the appeal proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene. It would cause harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area due to the excessive ridge height of the roof and bulk of the rear dormer. 15. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policy P10 of the Core Strategy Review, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the SPD which require, amongst other things, that new development should provide good design appropriate to its scale and function, respecting the form, proportions, character and appearance of the dwelling and the locality. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Harrison INSPECTOR