Appeal 3306786

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal has altered from the application form to the decision notice. That on the application form is adequate to describe the proposal and I have considered it on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.18) with regard to overbearing.

Despite being a reasonably modern development, [address] has a unity of design and a pleasant openness which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The design of the dwellings and their distribution of bulk contributes to this sense of openness. Many dwellings do not extend to the shared boundaries and it is often the case where they do, this is in the form of single storey development. This allows views between the properties further to the east and west.

The proposed extension would come out all the way to the boundary at two storey level. This would significantly restrict through views from the street to the west and would offer a sense of enclosure at the southern end of the street which would contrast sharply with its open character.

The proposal would therefore have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would subsequently conflict with Policy HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (2020) (HDLP) which amongst other things requires that extensions to dwellings have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

There would also be conflict with SPD1 guidance, which seeks to prevent the loss of gaps between buildings where this is important to the character of a street.

The rear elevation of the extension would be set slightly further to the west than the first floor of No. 18 which is the neighbouring property to the north. However, that property retains a slight set off from the boundary with the appeal property. Further, windows on the first-floor rear elevation would continue to offer an extensive outlook to the west.

The neighbouring property has a projecting rear off shoot at ground floor level, the boundary treatment is tall and robust and the extension at the appeal site would not extend rearwards of its main rear elevation. The extension would not be especially prominent to the occupiers of No.18 within this context.

The extension would therefore have no significant adverse impact in terms of overbearing on the occupiers of No.18. The proposal would not therefore conflict with Policy HP4 of the HDLP which overall requires that proposals do not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours.

I acknowledge that the proposal would provide additional space for the appellants family. However, the case for this issue, in justification for the proposal, has not been put forward in any level of detail. Further, there is nothing which indicates additional accommodation could not be provided in a less harmful manner. I can only therefore afford this matter very limited weight.

There is nothing to indicate that the decision should me made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.