Appeal 3302944

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development: • On the character and appearance of the host property and area; and • On the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The subject property is a detached dwelling set within a relatively large plot. It incorporates a 2 storey rear extension linked to a single storey side garage extension, with foundations laid for what appears to be further works to the rear. The proposal is to add a smaller additional storey above the garage, with dormer windows and a hipped roof. The property sits within a streetscene of predominantly detached dwellings of varying styles and sizes, some with significant front boundary vegetation including mature trees, and wide highway verges with footways. Together this creates a pleasant and spacious open suburban character.

The addition of a further storey above the garage would be a prominent substantial addition to the dwelling and its massing, which would not be in proportion. Only a minor drop from the original ridgeline is proposed, which would not give a sufficient impression of subservience, and the interplay of the roof forms including different roof plane angles would be somewhat disjointed. Consequently, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The extension would also be built right up to the boundary with No. [address], greatly reducing the first floor gap between the two. This would harm the existing relatively spacious context of the two dwellings within their plots and the streetscene, and would be particularly apparent and overwhelming as No. 110 has a wider gap between the original dwelling wall and the boundary.

I acknowledge that the dwellings on this stretch of the road have no unifying design, with great variation in size and form and height, including various types of extensions. There is also tree cover blocking to some extent longer distance views. Despite this, dwellings in the immediate stretch alongside the subject property have regular spacing between which contributes to the overall character of openness and space. This would be eroded by the proposal.

The appellant cites another dwelling further along the road as an example in support. [name] viewed it during my visit, it is not within the same streetscene context, and has a significantly different relationship with its neighbours particularly because it is a corner plot. It is therefore not directly comparable and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

In conclusion therefore, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area, which would be contrary to Policies HP3 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 (2020). These policies support proposals which incorporate high quality design that protects those characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the environment, and have no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the dwelling or its surrounding area. Specifically, the policies seek for proposals to respect the scale and appearance of spaces about and between buildings, and visual relationships.

The extension is proposed right against the boundary line with the neighbouring property at No. [address]. It would thus be very close to the side window and rear skylight of that property’s side extension, and also close to the window in its original side elevation. The proposed extension would therefore have an overbearing and oppressive impact in relation to its height relative to those windows, causing harm to outlook for the neighbouring occupants. As a material consideration, the [address] Extensions and Garages Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2005) sets guideline distances between properties, aiming to minimise outlook issues to protect residential amenity. The extension would be significantly closer than suggested by these guidelines.

In conclusion therefore, the development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook. This would conflict with Policies HP4 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (2020), which aim for proposals to create no adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity, and also with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) in relation to providing good design with a high standard of amenity.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations outweighing this conflict, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.