Residential extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by Caroline Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/D/18/3192869 27 Bilton Lane, Harrogate, HG1 3DT  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs J Kimberling against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council.  The application Ref 6.79.13563.FUL, dated 29 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 October 2017.  The development proposed is a residential extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. 27 Bilton Lane is a detached, hipped roof property constructed in brick and render. A detached garage lies within the side garden adjoining the common boundary with the adjacent library. The surrounding area comprises a mix of dwelling types and styles and is predominately residential. 4. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions and Garages Design Guide’ (2005) (SPD) states that the scale and form of extensions are critical to their acceptability and in most cases the extension must appear subservient to the original house and should be smaller in width, depth and height then the existing property. Almost always the front wall of the new extension should be set back from the face of the original dwelling and the ridge lower than the existing ridge. There is a strong presumption against extending the front of a house and extensions which incorporate a garage should be set back as far as possible in order to decrease its visual impact on the street scene. 5. The proposed extensions would result in considerable additions over and above the existing building significantly altering its size and form. The two storey side extension does not comply with guidance in the SPD, running flush with the front façade and ridgeline. Whilst noting the front porch already extends to the front of the property, the forward projection of the garage, together with its width and form would result in an incongruous addition, exacerbated by its Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3192869 2 corner position on the property. The existing garage is a discreet and modest structure and its demolition does not provide justification for the proposal. The irregular nature of the varying roof forms and front facades would unnecessarily complicate the external appearance of the dwelling. Whilst there is dispute between the parties in terms of the increase in footprint, the resultant increase in the overall scale and bulk would dominate the original property, failing to respect its architectural integrity and failing to achieve subordination. Thus the proposal conflicts with guidance within the SPD in this regard. 6. The proposed dormer would be a wide structure with a flat roof. Although it would be set up from the eaves and set in from the sides of the roof, it would be more or less the same height as the existing roof. As a result of its scale and position, the dormer would dominate the rear roofscape. It would be visible from surrounding properties and from the adjacent library. The appellant has drawn my attention to other dormers in the locality which I saw at my site visit. However, I am not aware of the background or circumstances which led to their construction which limits the weight that I can attach. 7. The appellant asserts that as the Council raises no concerns regarding the loft conversion per se, the two storey extension is acceptable. I do not agree. It is clear from the officer’s report that the Council consider the double fronted elevation over dominant and of poor composition. I note that as the extensions would be rendered there would be no visible joints. However, whilst matching materials is a concern when constructing side extensions, the purpose of requiring the set back and set down of an extension is also to maintain the architectural integrity of the original dwelling by ensuring the extension is subordinate. The appeal scheme fails to achieve this. 8. I am not persuaded that the proposal would materially harm the spatial quality of the street scene. The flank to flank distance with 29 Bilton Lane would not be reduced and the adjacent library is considerably set in and back from the common boundary with No 27. Given the above, the proposed extensions would be sufficiently separated from adjacent built development so that the sense of spaciousness would be maintained. Whilst noting that many garages are set back behind properties in the locality, there are properties whose garages are attached. Notwithstanding my findings in relation to the forward projection, to my mind an attached garage would not look out of place. Nonetheless, these matters do not mitigate my findings above. 9. I note the appellant’s desire for a larger home to accommodate their family. However, personal circumstances seldom outweigh general planning considerations. It is also noted that the Council did not raise any objection to the appeal scheme in terms of residential amenity and I have no reason to disagree. It has not been put to me that the plant room for the geo-thermal heating system could not be accommodated elsewhere and I note the site is not within the Green Belt. These matters do not outweigh the harm that I have found above. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and find conflict with the SPD, Policies EQ2 and SG4 of the Harrogate District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) and Policies H15 and HD20 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (2001). These seek to ensure, amongst other Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3192869 3 things, high quality design that has no detriment on the character or appearance of the dwelling or surrounding area. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above and taking all matters into account, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Caroline Jones INSPECTOR