Appeal 3323030

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal site forms part of a row of well-proportioned, recently constructed detached properties along part of [address] with views out to the open countryside on the opposite side of the road. Whilst the properties vary in style and form, there is a repetition of features and a shared sense of scale and proportion giving the area an attractive consistency. A common feature is the presence of a single, two-storey projecting front gable, with several properties having a forward projecting double garage similar to the appeal property.

The proposed first-floor extension above the existing garage would introduce an additional two-storey gable to the host property. This alteration would lead to a distinct departure in frontage design, at odds with the built form along this part of [address]. It would accordingly reduce the quality of the area’s consistency. Due to the width and forward projection of the garage, which extends beyond the existing two storey gable, the proposed extension would compete with the existing gable, creating a dominant addition to the front elevation. As such, this would result in an incongruous and unduly prominent addition, detracting from the existing well-proportioned scale and appearance of the host property and the wider street-scene.

The provisions of the Development Management Supplementary Planning Document (2021) are guidance only and indicates an element of discretion can be exercised. Whilst the use of matching materials and a hipped roof form would assist in some harmonising, the mass and bulk of the proposed first-floor extension would not be subordinate and thus harmful to the character and appearance of the area in the above terms.

Consequently, the proposals would not accord with Policy GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 (2019) and Policy H6 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan Review (2020). Together these seek to ensure that development respects the context and characteristics of the individual site, the street scene and the local environment. These principles underpin the guidance within the Council’s Development management Supplementary Planning Document, with which the development conflicts.

Whilst the appeal scheme is smaller than the development at No 18, the positioning of No 18 is less prominent than the appeal property. No 18 is located at the end of a row of houses, set further back within the development and away from the public footpath that is located in the open countryside. Thus, it is not as readily visible as the appeal property. This example does not therefore change my conclusions.

I do not have the full details of the case at No [address] before me, and so cannot be sure of the reasons that led to its approval. [name] appreciate the need for consistency in decision making, the approval of [address] is not a sufficient reason for allowing this extension, which I have found on its own merits would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Concerns on how the Council dealt with the planning application should be taken up with them directly. They are not a matter for this appeal which focusses on the planning merits.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. There is nothing sufficiently compelling to indicate a decision to the contrary. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.