Appeal 3331514

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for internal alterations, single storey rear extension and additional roof dormers at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref ZC23/01996/FUL, dated 25 May 2023, 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 entitled: [name], [name], Block Plan – Proposed, [name], [name] and the Location Plan.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

While the appellant has described the proposal as in the above heading the Council has referred to it as the erection of a front extension including alterations to the roof, dormer windows and a single storey rear extension together with alterations to the fenestration and materials. From my inspection of the drawings, I consider that the Council’s more fully reflects the development sought. I have assessed the appeal scheme on that basis.

Killinghall Parish Council has described the plans as poor and restricted to the site only. I have taken this concern into account in my assessment of the proposal, which is based on all the submitted evidence and an inspection of the site and its surroundings. On that basis, I am satisfied that the details of the appeal scheme as shown on the drawings and detailed in the written evidence allow a reasonable assessment of the development sought.

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

The appeal property is a detached bungalow that faces [address], which is a short residential cul-de-sac along which detached dwellings of individual design and size predominate. Like the properties on either side of the site, Greenfields occupies an elevated position to the road due to the notable difference in ground levels. The dwelling has a relatively wide front elevation compared to its depth into the good-sized landscaped plot. The walls of the dwelling are predominantly brick. The main roof is dual pitched with a taller middle section and there is a dormer on each of the front and rear roof slopes.

The proposed extensions would be modern in design, fenestration, and materials with clean lines, rendered walls, flat roofs, extensive glazing and rear dormers that include dark grey surroundings. That the existing dwelling would also include a render finish and slate effect roof tiles to match the new additions would unify the overall appearance of the completed dwelling. This approach would transform the existing dwelling into a single homogenous entity with an unapologetic contemporary style that would be distinctive. The modest scale and traditional style of the bungalow and its unassuming low-key presence in the street scene would firmly give way to a mainly 2-storey house with a modern, rectilinear design and a general appearance that would gain prominence in the streetscape and make its own strong visual statement.

The completed building would be far larger than the existing dwelling with extended front and rear elevations and an enlarged footprint. The visually strong horizontal lines primarily formed by the new flat roofs and the pattern of fenestration would accentuate the considerable width and scale of the new additions. When seen from the road, the front extension would be a prominent feature in the new front elevation, standing forward of the main wall and projecting well into the roofscape of the host building. Similarly, the new dormer on the central roof slope and the ground floor addition would also be highly conspicuous features in the new rear elevation given their scale and flat roof design. Even so, taken as a whole, the finished dwelling would be reasonably well-proportioned with appropriately sized window openings and a sense of balance to its front and rear facades. Despite the contrasting roof forms, there would be no visual disharmony between the flat and pitched roof elements. Overall, the appeal scheme would be in keeping with the qualities and character of an individually designed house.

The area within which Greenfields is located, whilst having a coherent residential character, is capable of successfully accommodating a variety of dwellings in terms of style, size, and appearance. The enlarged property would stand confidently and comfortably within the landscaped plot. It would be compatible in its varied residential context, which is one of harmonious variety with brick and render as dominant external materials. With good sized gardens remaining to the front and rear, and ample space around the finished building, the proposal would not appear as overdevelop the site.

The proposal does not seek subservience to the original house. As such, it is at odds with some of the advice within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, [name] and [name] (SPD). Nevertheless, the overall composition and form of the completed dwelling would be acceptable. The appeal scheme also responds positively to the character and spatial quality of the area in line with the advice in the SPD. The SPD also states contemporary designs that respect local character are welcomed. That would be the case here. To my mind, the balance of the guidance set out in the SPD is tipped in favour of the proposed extensions and alterations.

On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Accordingly, it does not conflict with Policies HP3 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 (LP) nor the advice within the SPD. These policies and guidance broadly aim to ensure that new development incorporates high quality design and that dwelling extensions do not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the building or the surrounding area. There is also no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that developments should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. No further conditions have been suggested by the Council and, from my assessment of the evidence, none are required.

There are no material considerations that indicate the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.