Appeal 3304418

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of first floor side extension to existing dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 22/01319/FUL dated 30 March 2022 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan 2201/05, Existing Site Plan 2201/03, [name] and Elevations 2201- 01 [name], [name] and Elevations 2201- 02 [name], Amended Proposed Site Plan 2201-04 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

[site address] is a detached two-storey, stone-built dwelling, originally of modest size which has been substantially extended to the rear and side1. Although not a listed building, this vernacular building displays interesting architectural features including stone mullioned windows, quoins and projecting corbels 1 Application ref: 17/05457/FUL which provide some architectural and historic interest. Accordingly, the building, which lies in a rural position in the open countryside, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the Nidderdale Valley area as set out in the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (Lower Nidderdale Valley).

The proposal seeks to add a first-floor extension above the single-storey element of the existing extension at the side of the dwelling. The extension, which would provide an additional bedroom or home office, would be constructed in natural stone with detailing to reflect that of the existing structure.

The reason for refusal refers to guidance in the [address] Extensions and [name] although there is no analysis of the scheme against this document before me. Nevertheless, I note that the document sets out what are considered to be the key components of good design which include the form, external appearance and style of an extension. I have taken this into account in my determination.

The proposed extension would be modest in terms of its scale considered against the dwelling as a whole, and as viewed from [site address] against the original dwelling and two-storey side extension. Its height and regular form, including its pitched roof, would match that of the existing house. Window details and materials would also match those already present in the building. The extension would be clearly visible in the public realm, both from the front and from the west along [site address] but for these reasons it would not appear discordant or overbearing.

Moreover, the extension would be set back from the front elevation of the original dwelling and as such the corner and some of the side wall of the original building, including part of its roof and corner masonry, would remain visible. Viewed from the road, the set back would also enable the extension to appear as a subservient addition allowing the original part of the cottage to remain legible. Accordingly, whilst I note the Council’s concern that the proposal together with the extension already constructed would ‘wrap around’ the original building, which the existing extension already does albeit to a lesser degree, the proposal itself would only have a limited additional impact on the visual appearance and character of the original dwelling.

I have taken into consideration the concern of the Council that the proposal would be detrimental to the visual hierarchy and relationship between [site address] and the neighbouring [address] to the east. However, the cottage and the house are distinct buildings which are of different styles and appear to date from different periods. Moreover, although they are located in close proximity to one another there is no evidence before me of an historic or functional relationship between the two. Accordingly, even though the extension would further enlarge [site address] , I am unconvinced that there would be any detriment to the significance of the buildings when considered together.

For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the building and consequently that of the surrounding landscape and special qualities of the AONB.

As such, the proposal would comply with policies GS6, NE4, HP3 and HS8 of the Local Plan which seek in various ways to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB; protect enhance and restore landscape character including through maintaining the aesthetic qualities of natural and man-made heritage including buildings; contribute to local distinctiveness and cause no adverse impact to the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.

For these reasons, and taking into account all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions set out above.