Appeal 3325299

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development as it appears on the decision notice and the appeal form as it accurately describes the development proposed.

The main issues are: • The effect on the character and appearance of the area. • The effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards outlook and light.

The appeal site is a 2 storey detached house with attached pitched roof garage to the front of the property, prominently located at the entrance to [address]. Adjacent to the site is a split level dwelling, No 31, fronting onto [address] which sits on lower land than the neighbouring property in [address]. The [address] proximity. Opposite the site, No [address] has a 2 storey element adjacent to the road.

The scale and massing of the proposal in a prominent location would have a dominating, enclosing effect visually narrowing the entrance to the road. The impact would be compounded by the 2 storey element at No 7, the presence of which does not weigh in favour of the scheme. The proposed materials to match the existing dwelling would not overcome the harm.

The appellant has referred to other street facing 2 storey side developments in support of their case. However, they are in different locations where the circumstances are different which limits the weight I attach to them.

The development would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with the part of Policy GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 (Local Plan) which requires new development to respect the context and characteristics of the site, street scene and wider local environment.

The proposed [address] to the boundary with No [address]. The height, scale and massing of the development in close proximity would have an overbearing effect on the neighbouring occupiers, exacerbated by the differing ground levels. Whilst the effect would be less in winter, the appellants evidence identifies that development would cause overshadowing for a significant proportion of the morning during summer. The loss of light and overshadowing would be unacceptable, particularly when considered in conjunction with the overbearing impact of the scheme.

The development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with regards outlook and light. As such it would conflict with the part of Policy GD8 of the Local Plan which requires new development to minimise the impact on the amenity of existing residents by not having a significant adverse effect through overshadowing or overbearing impact.

Whilst the development would create some economic gain during construction and occupation, the small scale of the development limits the weight I attach to this. The appellant says that the development would not impact on the surrounding trees or ecology. Be that as it may, it is a neutral consideration rather than a benefit of the development.

I note the reasons for the planning application but the benefits to the occupant are outweighed by the harm I have identified.

For the reasons identified and taking into account all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.