First floor side and rear extension

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: 7 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011398 26 Pinfold Lane, Halton, Leeds LS15 7SY • 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 Laura Prideaux against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref is 26/01601/FU. • The development proposed is first floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor side and rear extension at 26 Pinfold Lane, Halton, Leeds LS15 7SY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/01601/FU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Block Plan DP-PL-PD01 and Proposed Floor Plan & Elevations DP-PL-PD03 Rev.A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the bathroom and en-suite windows have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the windows are installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, with a single storey extension to the side and rear. The single storey side extension is flush with the front wall of the property. The property is set within a predominantly residential area, largely comprising semi-detached and detached houses in a variety of styles, many of which have been extended. The property is set within a group of three Appeal Decision 6011398 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings. Pinfold Lane is on a slope, such that the appeal property is set slightly higher than the neighbouring dwelling, no.24. 4. The proposed development comprises a first-floor extension to the side and rear of the property, creating a new master bedroom, dressing room, en-suite and enlarging the existing bathroom. The first-floor side extension would be flush with the front wall of the dwelling. 5. This aspect of the scheme’s design puts it at odds with guidance set out in the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (April 2012) (SPD) that requires side extensions to be subservient to the host property, with a 2-metre set back from the front wall of the property. 6. However, the SPD also acknowledges the need for symmetry in a pair of semi- detached dwellings. In this case, there is currently a lack of symmetry between the appeal property and its attached neighbour, No.28, which has been extended to the side with a two-storey extension that is flush to the front wall of the property. Consequently, the proposed development would bring symmetry and harmony to the pair of semi-detached dwellings. 7. Additionally, I am mindful that the existing single storey side extension to the appeal property is flush with the front wall of the property. It is logical that any first- floor extension would also be flush, as any set back would appear contrived. The proposed front elevation brings symmetry to the property itself due to the design of the first-floor fenestration. Were the first floor to be set back 2 metres then the balance achieved by this design would be lost. 8. Whilst the first-floor side extension would reduce the gap to the neighbouring unattached property, No.24 Pinfold Lane, this is not out of keeping with the built form of the surrounding area, where many properties have been extended. It would not introduce a harmful terracing effect, as a gap would still be maintained to No.24 and due to the sloping nature of Pinfold Road, the ridge line of the roof of the appeal property would be slightly higher than that of No.24, maintaining a clear visual distinction between the two pairs of semi-detached dwellings. 9. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing building or the surrounding area. Accordingly, I do not find conflict overall with Policy P10 of the Core Strategy Review (2019), Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) or the SPD which require, amongst other things, that new development should provide good design appropriate to its scale and function and that extensions should respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building. Other Matters 10. The Appeal Statement refers to the occupant having a medical condition and the need for the proposed development to provide flexibility to accommodate their future needs. As I am allowing this appeal for other reasons, I have not needed to explore this matter in further detail. Appeal Decision 6011398 3 Conditions 11. The Council has provided a list of suggested planning conditions, which I have considered in the light of Policy DM6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance. 12. In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (2). A condition is necessary requiring materials which match in order to integrate the appearance of the proposed extension with that of the original building (3). 13. I am imposing a condition requiring the bathroom and en-suite windows be fitted with obscured glazing and any opening part of those windows to be at least 1.7 metres above floor level (4). The Council requested this for all new windows on the rear elevation, but I do not consider that this is necessary in the case of the dressing room window. The rear garden of the appeal property is of sufficient depth that I do not have concerns regarding overlooking or loss of privacy from this window to any neighbouring dwellings or their gardens. 14. The Council also suggested a condition requiring no window on the side elevations. Policy DM6 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. In this case there is no clear justification for such a condition, and as such I have not imposed the suggested condition. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Mark Harrison INSPECTOR