Appeal 3306023

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has confirmed that the description of the development has changed, therefore, I have taken the description in the banner heading from the appeal form and determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

No [site address] (No 5) is a semi-detached two storey dwelling fronting [address], a country lane between villages. The appeal property is part of a small group of cottages sited close to the lane frontage and surrounded by open, agricultural fields. As a consequence, the cottages, including the appeal property, are notable features in the landscape.

No 5 and its attached neighbour have been extended differently, however, both properties retain prominent steeply pitched front, rear, and side gable roofs and attractive brick work detailing at the eaves line. These features, particularly the front and rear gable details, maintain a certain symmetry between the properties that contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

Although the extensions would be constructed of matching materials, the proposed two-storey extension would be sited flush with the cottage’s front wall, would have a significant width when compared with the existing front first floor elevation of the cottage and introduce a relatively shallow pitched gable elevation facing towards the side garden. Further, the extension would cut into the gable eaves line at the front and rear foreshortening the gables to one side and would require the removal of brick detailing to the front gable. As a result of its size, siting and design the two-storey extension would dominate the existing structure, would be incongruous with the size and design of the cottage and undermine the balanced appearance of the semi-detached pair.

Whilst the single storey extension would be set back from the road and would not, of itself, appear incongruous from the street, taken together with the two-storey addition the proposed development would notably alter the property’s scale and appearance and would overwhelm the existing structure. Consequently, the extensions would not be sympathetic to the form or distinctive features of the existing cottage, the inappropriate design and size of the proposal would draw attention, and, because of the dwelling’s prominent position, the extensions would look harmfully out of place.

Although the appellant indicates that there are similar extensions in the area, no specific examples have been brought to my attention and I did not observe any in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property at my site visit.

Overall, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area in conflict with Policies HP3 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035, where these policies seek to protect local distinctiveness and ensure extensions are designed to be in sympathy with the original building. It would also conflict with the [name] & [name] which seeks to achieve good design by, amongst other things, ensuring extensions are subservient to the original house.

I appreciate that the appellant proposes to provide accommodation to support his mother. However, the extension is not solely for this purpose, and I have no evidence before me that an extension of a different design could not achieve the required annexe accommodation.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.