Appeal 3364518

The appeal is dismissed.

On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in England and Wales became “National Landscapes”. AONBs have been renamed as National Landscapes to reflect their national importance, However, the legal designation and policy status of these areas are unchanged, so I have proceeded on this basis. This is of relevance to references to AONBs in local planning policy and guidance.

The appellant has indicated that development has commenced on site pursuant to the extant planning permission granted under Council Ref: 21/05409/FUL, which permitted the construction of an enlarged porch to replace the existing porch. However, it is not within the scope of this appeal to determine whether that permission has been lawfully implemented.

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area which is part of the Nidderdale National Landscape.

The appeal site lies within the Nidderdale National Landscape. Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads, and National Landscapes.

The character and appearance of the immediate area are defined by the attractive hamlet known as [site address] , which comprises a mixture of traditional dwellings, including cottages and larger detached houses. This small settlement makes a significant contribution to the character and visual quality of the National Landscape—both in terms of its immediate setting and as a representative example of a rural settlement within a nationally designated area.

The dwelling to which the porch is proposed to be added is a traditional detached cottage that has been extensively and sensitively renovated. The original cottage remains the principal element, with the side extensions designed in a manner that retains their subservience to the original body of the dwelling. The small front porch is consistent with the proportions of the dwelling and similar in scale and design to porches added to other nearby properties. Notably, the cottage retains a strong, traditional linear form that is characteristic of traditional cottage dwellings in the area. The property presents a visually pleasing feature when viewed from the south, from the public right of way leading away from the hamlet in a northerly direction.

The proposed porch would represent a substantial addition to the principal elevation of the dwelling. It is designed to wrap around the corner of the original frontage and would partially infill the recess created by the set back of the previously constructed side extension. The ridge height would extend above the cill level of the first-floor windows, introducing a prominent built form to the façade. When viewed from the south in particular, the addition would appear especially conspicuous, altering the visual balance and simplicity of the elevation.

The proposed addition challenges and conflicts with the existing linear form of the dwelling, which is recognised as a key characteristic. It introduces a prominent and incongruous element into the building’s composition, which is not in keeping with the prevailing architectural form. Due to particularly its scale, it will appear incongruous and constitutes an inappropriate form of development that is unsympathetic to both the original dwelling and its surroundings. As a result, it would undermine and detract from what is currently a coherent and visually pleasing composition.

An extant planning permission for an enlarged porch to replace the existing one on the site, granted under Council Ref: 21/05409/FUL, has been brought to my attention. While larger in scale than the existing porch, the approved porch maintained a similar depth projecting forward of the main façade of the dwelling to the proposal before me. However, in contrast that proposal maintained an appropriate relationship with the existing dwelling. Notably, it did not extend into the recessed area to the side, as proposed in the current appeal scheme. This distinction is significant, as this omission significantly reduced its apparent bulk, preserved a more traditional front elevation and avoided conflicting with the dwelling’s key linear form. By contrast, as noted, the current proposal introduces a substantial addition that conflicts with the prevailing architectural character of the building.

In this regard, the proposal is contrary to the [address] Extensions and [name] (2005) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which states that porch additions to the front of dwellings are only acceptable where they are not detrimental to the character of the property. The guidance further advises that porches should not project excessively from the front elevation and should not conflict with or visually compete against existing architectural features. The proposed porch fails to comply with these principles and would therefore represent a discordant and inappropriate addition to the dwelling.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposed development is contrary to Policies GS6, HP3, and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014–2035 (adopted March 2020) (“the Local Plan”). Amongst other objectives, these policies require that development conserves and enhances the natural beauty and special qualities of the Nidderdale National Landscape; respects the spatial qualities of the local area—including the scale, appearance, and use of space around and between buildings and structures, as well as important visual relationships, views, and vistas; and ensures that extensions to dwellings are only permitted where there is no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the dwelling or its surroundings.

[name] acknowledge that the enlarged porch would provide the appellant with additional storage space at the entrance to the dwelling and improve the functionality of its use. This personal benefit does not outweigh my conclusions regarding the adverse impact of the proposal, as outlined above. I therefore attach very limited weight to this consideration in the overall planning balance.

Other issues raised relate to the quality of construction that would be employed in forming the porch which would repeat the other work undertaken on the dwelling previously. The absence of harm relating to living conditions of surrounding occupiers and highway safety is also highlighted. Nevertheless, the absence of harm in these respects is not a tangible benefit that weighs in favour of the proposal, rather it is an expectation of other local and national planning policies.

I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area which is part of the Nidderdale National Landscape. In this regard the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not justify a departure from it, the appeal is dismissed.