Appeal 6005005

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council does not raise concern regarding the replacement windows and roof, I have no substantive evidence to lead me to a different conclusion upon this part of the development.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the first-floor front extension over part of existing garage, partial garage conversion and the single storey extension to the garage on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) the living conditions of occupiers of [address].

The appeal property is a detached dwelling occupying a prominent corner plot within Walton Park, an established residential area characterised by a varied but generally spacious pattern of development. A number of properties within the estate have been extended, including the addition of first-floor elements above garages.

A defining characteristic of the relationship between the appeal property and No. [address] is the staggered building line, with No. 19 positioned forward of its neighbour. The existing garage, being single storey, limits the visual effect of this projection and maintains a degree of openness within the street scene.

The proposed development would introduce a first-floor element above part of the existing garage, together with a further single-storey extension projecting forward towards the highway. This would materially increase the massing at the front of the site in a visually prominent position. The resulting form would erode the established staggered relationship between the properties and create a more dominant and intrusive built presence.

Whilst the design and use of matching materials would not be out of keeping with the host property the proposed development would be visually dominant due to its forward projection and increased height in the context of the siting of the property. As such, it would fail to respect the spatial characteristics of this part of Walton Park. I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.

In relation to the main issue relating to character and appearance the proposed development is contrary to Policies HP3 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 (2020) (the Local Plan) which seek amongst other things to ensure development respect spatial qualities of a local area, visual relationships and protect the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

Due to the forward position of the appeal property the proposed development would sit prominently in front of the neighbouring property, No. [address]. The proposed single-storey extension would project significantly forward of the principal elevation of No. 21, with the two-storey element set behind this projection, the Council confirm this is approximately 2.2m behind the elevation of the existing garage. This arrangement would result in a substantial built form occupying a dominant position when viewed from the front-facing windows and front garden area of No. 21.

Although some screening would be retained in the form of mature landscaping along the boundary between the appeal site and No. 21, the introduction of additional mass in such close proximity would create a sense of enclosure. The extension would appear as a visually intrusive and overbearing feature, diminishing the openness currently experienced from No. 21.

Due to the south-west orientation of the proposal relative to No. 21, the development would result in additional overshadowing. I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate that this would not harm the living conditions of No. 21.

I find that the proposal would create a dominant form of development which would harm outlook, and result in loss of light to the occupiers of No. [address].

I have taken into account that no objections were received from neighbouring occupiers. However, the absence of objections does not outweigh the harm identified, and the planning system must safeguard amenity for both current and future occupiers.

In relation to the main issue relating to living conditions the proposed development is contrary to Policies HP4 and HS8 of the Local Plan which seek amongst other things to protect the amenity of neighbours.

I find the proposed replacement windows and roof is not clearly severable both physically and functionally from the first-floor front extension over part of existing garage, partial garage conversion and the single storey extension to the garage.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.