Appeal 3339310

The appeal is dismissed.

On the 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in England and Wales became National Landscapes (NL). The site lies within the designated [name]. I have thus used the NL description even where the AONB description is directly cited within the policies and guidance.

At the time of my site visit, work was ongoing at the appeal site, with the main roof of the dwelling removed. This appeared to be pursuant to the previous planning permission granted in September 20231 to raise the roof to create a first floor. The approved development is included in the proposed plans before me. Nevertheless, having regard to the extant permission, my assessment focuses on the effect of the proposed first floor extension above the existing offshoot and associated alterations only.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the [name].

Policy GS6 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 (the Local Plan) states that the natural beauty and special qualities of the [name] will be conserved and enhanced. This accords with Paragraph 182 of the Framework, which places great weight on the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty in NLs. I am also mindful of my statutory duty to seek to further the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of NLs. 1 Council Ref ZC23/02792/FUL

In this area, the [name] comprises a broad, well-wooded, rural valley landscape that features scattered farmsteads, houses, villages and hamlets. Along the valley sides, settlement tends to be nestled into wooded undulations. Surrounding the appeal site are pastoral fields interspersed with small pockets of woodland and sporadic development. The elevation and limited tree cover here provides sweeping views across the landscape. Traditional building materials are local sandstone with stone slate and blue slate roofs. These characteristics contribute to the enclosed dale and valley landscapes that are a special quality of the area and provide a contrast to the upland plateaus.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling and its associated curtilage. It sits on a steep country lane leading down into [site address] to the west. Though some screening is provided by trees along the western boundary, the existing dwelling sits immediately adjacent to the road and in an elevated position on the valley side. The site thus remains relatively prominent, particularly viewed from the south and east.

The existing dwelling is a modest bungalow finished in a light colour render, that previously featured a hipped roof. The approved plans before me depict a taller dwelling, albeit one that is of a form and appearance that is more sympathetic to the local vernacular. The approved dual pitched roof would also slope away to the west, following the topography of the valley, and would culminate in a subordinate flat roof over the existing offshoot.

The proposed extension would incorporate design features found in the approved scheme. It would be relatively narrow and set in from the main gables, with a ridge height below that of the main roof. Nevertheless, the perpendicular first floor projection beyond the main roof slope and introduction of a prominent west facing gable would erode the building hierarchy and the sympathetic form of the approved scheme.

Moreover, the proposed eaves would sit appreciably above those of the main roof. Combined with the depth of the proposed extension and its contrasting stone finish, this would create an uncharacteristically bulky and unduly dominant addition. It would also be contrary to guidance contained within the [name] & [name], September 2005 (the SPD), which states that an extension should normally be subservient to the original house and ideally the eaves should be at a lower level.

Given its prominent location, the proposed extension would be a noticeable incursion towards the valley that would not nestle into the landscape and that would unbalance the host dwelling. This would detract from the special qualities of the NL and would fail to further the purposes of conserving and enhancing its natural beauty.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the [name]. It would conflict with Policies GS6, HP3 and HS8 of the Local Plan. These policies, among other provisions, seek to protect the natural beauty and special qualities of the [name], ensure that all development incorporates high quality design that respects local distinctiveness and the spatial qualities of the area, and ensure that extensions to dwellings do not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the dwelling or surrounding area.

It would also conflict with Paragraphs 140 and 182 of the Framework, which seek to limit the scale and extent of development within National Landscapes and to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme.

I recognise that the Parish Council and several local residents expressed support for the proposal. However, this does not in itself demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable with respect to the main issue and does not lead me to a different conclusion.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. I have found no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.