Appeal 3336320

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.

On 19 December 2023, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, as any policies in the Framework that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed, I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have made my recommendation on this basis.

Planning permission (Ref 21/03442/FUL) was granted on 14 January 2022 for part single, part two storey rear extension, New rooflights and dormer, new front garden wall and railings, internal alterations and replacement garage (As amended).

Following that permission, planning permission was granted on 17 April 2023 for variation of condition 2 of Planning Permission 21/03442/FUL to allow a new roof lantern to the single storey extension with a hipped roof to the first-floor element with fenestration alterations1.

The appeal proposal seeks to vary condition 2 of permission 23/00857/DVCON to allow alterations to the approved garage through alterations to its size and form to match the neighbour’s garage at [address], with the addition of solar panels and fenestration changes.

The main issues are therefore the effect that varying condition 2 would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area with particular regard to the Harrogate Conservation Area (the CA) and on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with particular regard to light and outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey terraced dwelling located along [address], and forms part of an attractive row of stone Victorian terraced houses (nos. 19 - 24) that front onto The Stray. This group make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area and are identified as buildings of Local Interest and Merit in the Harrogate Conservation Area Character Appraisal and are a non-designated heritage asset. This is due to their architectural quality, prominent location and relative absence of undesirable alterations.

The rear of the terrace largely consists of walled gardens with several properties also having detached garages fronting onto [address]. This streetscene is less formal in character, with a variety of single and two storey garages of varying quality along the eastern side and modern apartment buildings on the western side. There are also mews houses further down [address]. 1 23/00857/DVCON

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

From my site visit, I saw that large garages are a feature on this streetscene. Furthermore, the appellant has drawn my attention to a similar sized garage building to the appeal proposal which has been recently approved at the rear of the adjoining property, 21 Beech Grove2. Given the character of [address], the proposed garage will not be out of scale or character with the locality despite it being larger than the previously approved scheme at the appeal property. This is particularly the case as there are a number of two storey stone garages in the vicinity. In addition, the apartments opposite the garage, [address], are three storeys in scale. Therefore, the proposal will not over-dominate the surrounding buildings.

Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed garage would have a neutral effect and would thus preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Consequently, it would accord with Policies HP2 and HP3 of Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035 (March 2020) (the LP) and the Framework which seek amongst other matters to ensure that proposals incorporate high quality buildings which enhances or reinforces local distinctiveness and that proposals affecting a heritage assets such as conservation areas protect and, where appropriate, enhance those elements that have been identified as making a positive contribution to the character and special architectural or historic interest of the area and its setting.

As noted above, planning permission exists for a garage building to the rear of the appeal site. From the Councils evidence, this permission allows a building which would be 8 metres in depth (front to rear), be 3.2 metres high to eaves level, and would have a ridge height of 5.7 metres.

The appeal proposal seeks to increase the size of the building so that it would be around 11 metres in depth, have an eaves height of around 4 metres, and a ridge height of 6.7 metres. The proposed garage would span the width of the rear garden and would be of length almost half its depth. It would be at a height to match the neighbouring garage at [address].

The appeal site is to the south of No.19 and as such given its orientation it has the potential to cast a shadow over the garden areas of No.19. However, the same could be said of the extant permission.

In my view, the increase in height and depth of the garage building would not have any significant impact on sunlight or additional overshadowing when compared to the extant permission. This is particularly the case as there would still be direct sunlight to the main parts of the garden at varying times of the day. In a similar vein, I consider that the proposal would not restrict daylight to the garden areas to an unacceptable degree.

Turning to the matter of outlook, the increase in height of the eaves level (to a height of around 4 metres) would give rise to a significant visual barrier. This increase in eaves height, together with the increased depth of the building, would undoubtably have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the 2 Reference 19/01262/FUL occupiers of No.19 when they utilise the garden owing to the overall scale and massing of the garage building.

In coming to that view, I acknowledge that the extant permission would still give rise to a large building on the appeal site. However, the increase in the quantum of development as a result of its depth and eaves height in particular would result in a level of harm which is unacceptable.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to the recent approval at [address], and the desire to match the scale of that permission. [name] have some sympathy with that, it is significant that the appeal site previously had a smaller garage on it which gave rise to a very different characteristic of the use of the rear space when compared to No.19. As such, I consider that the existence of the permission at No. 21 does not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

In summary, I find that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and thus would not accord with Policies HP4 and HP8 of the LP and the Framework which amongst other matters seek to ensure that proposals should be designed to ensure that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ifeanyi Chukwujekwu APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER

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