Appeal 3291875

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) character and appearance of the surrounding area and (ii) balanced communities.

The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly by residential properties, mainly in the form of semi-detached dwellings. The buildings are of traditional architectural design with modest roof forms.

The proposed extension, given a step in the roof line or set back from the front building line is not present, would appear as a bulky addition that would not be subservient to the main property.

The proposal would not create a terracing effect due to its position with regards to neighbouring properties. However, its design would create a roof form that would be a large dominant structure that would detract from the appearance of the host property and the street scene.

[name] note there are similar alterations to other properties in the area and the proposal is unlikely to compromise the nearby conservation area, this would not alter my findings above as the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Planning conditions relating to further amendments of the scheme would not be appropriate as I can only consider the appeal on the evidence that is before me.

Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would be contrary to Strategic Policy C and Policy CO17 of the North York Moors National Park Authority Local Plan 2020 (LP) which seeks development to maintain and enhance the distinctive character of the local area and the special qualities of the National Park.

The Council have calculated that the proposal would increase the habitable floorspace beyond 30% as identified in part 3a) of Policy CO17. Whilst the floorspace of the internal rooms would increase in size, the proposal would effectively be changing the property from a two bedroom to a three bedroom property. The appellant has explained that the extension is required to expand family living to remain in an area which is close to work, schools and public transport.

The overall size of the property including the proposed extension would not be out of keeping with the scale of other properties in the area. On this basis, I do not find that the proposed extension would result in a property that would have a detrimental effect on the mix of dwelling types needed to sustain a balanced community within the National Park.

Whilst the proposal would not be harmful to the balance of communities in the area, as indicated above, the proposal remains contrary to Policy CO17 of the LP with regards to its effects on character and appearance.

The proposal would not have an adverse effect on the balance of communities in the area. However, this matter would not outweigh the harm I have identified with regards to the effects on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.