Single storey extension to rear of property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2018 by Caroline Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/D/18/3194456 Oakdale Farm Cottage, Penny Pot Lane, Harrogate HG3 2SD  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 Claire Monkhouse against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council.  The application Ref 6.79.12270.A.FUL, dated 5 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 November 2017.  The development proposed is single storey extension to rear of property. 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 surrounding area. Reasons 3. Oakdale Farm Cottage is a two storey detached property which forms part of a former farmstead comprising original dwellings and barn conversions within a Special Landscape Area (SLA). The wider farmstead, including the appeal property, has retained its traditional form and inherent character and appearance through a sympathetic development which has preserved its rural setting in the wider landscape. The land falls steeply away immediately to the rear of the property before gradually rising again towards the north. As such, the property occupies an elevated position which is clearly visible from Penny Pot Lane to the north. 4. The proposed extension would protrude around 4.5 metres from the rear wall of the host property and would measure approximately 9 metres in width. Due to the fall in ground level, the extension would be supported on steel columns clad in timber. Despite the use of matching roof materials, there would be a significant amount of glazing which together with the timber cladding would afford the extension a contemporary appearance out of keeping with the intrinsic character of the traditional rural building. This harm would be exacerbated by the scale of the proposal which would overwhelm the rear elevation and considerably alter its appearance. 5. Whilst the property may not be visible from Birk Crag, the extension would be clearly visible from the public realm on Penny Pot Lane. For the above reasons Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3194456 2 the proposal does not constitute a high standard of design and given that the dwelling’s currently traditional appearance compliments its setting in the SLA, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the SLA in a small but nonetheless unduly harmful way. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and find conflict with Policies C9, H15 and HD20 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (2001) (LP), Policies EQ2 and SG4 of the Harrogate District Core Strategy (2009) (CS) and guidance within the House Extensions and Garages Design Guide SPD. Together these seek, amongst other things, high quality locally distinctive design that respects and causes no detriment to the character or appearance of the dwelling or surrounding area including the landscape character giving long term protection to SLAs. The appeal scheme also conflicts with paragraphs 17 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which require high quality design and the protection of valued landscapes. 7. I note that paragraph 96 of the Framework states that local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected landscape areas will be judged. Whilst Policy C9 of the CS predates the Framework and is not in itself criteria based, its purpose is to protect the character of SLAs in the long term by requiring high quality design. This is consistent with paragraphs 17 and 109 of the Framework. 8. In any event, I have also found conflict with Policies H15 and HD20 of the LP and Policies EQ2 and SG4 of the CS which are consistent with the design objectives of the Framework which include, that planning should always seek to secure a high quality of design (paragraph 17); that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development (paragraph 56) and should respond to local character (paragraph 58); and that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness (paragraph 60). As the policies are considered up to date and I have found conflict with them, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above and taking all matters into account, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Caroline Jones INSPECTOR