Erection of first floor extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 10 May 2021 by J Hunter BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/D/21/3268991 Hill Top Cottage, 8 Kent Bank, HARROGATE, HG1 2NQ • 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 Simon Pollard against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council. • The application Ref 20/03201/FUL, dated 21 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 27 January 2021. • The development proposed is described as erection of first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are i) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 1 Oakdale Cottages with reference to outlook and ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons Living Conditions 3. It is proposed to erect a first floor extension above the existing garage that is attached to the eastern elevation of the host dwelling. The extension would provide additional bedroom and bathroom facilities. The design includes a hipped roof that would run perpendicular to, but at the same height as the existing ridge of the principal roof. 4. The southern elevation of the host property sits around 3 metres from the shared boundary with no. 1 Oakdale Cottages, a modest two storey end of terrace that sits at right angles to the host dwelling with its gable end facing towards the existing gable of the appeal property. 5. The host property is currently around 1.5 storeys and as such it sits slightly lower than 1 Oakdale Cottages. It is close to the shared boundary however, its relatively steeply sloping roof form means that although the southern elevation of the host building occupies a good proportion of the shared boundary it does not appear overbearing when viewed from the gardens of Oakdale Cottages. 6. I note the appellant’s submission that the proposal would not increase the footprint of the host property, however, the introduction of the proposed hipped roof extension running parallel to the shared boundary would result in a significantly increased scale of development close to the shared boundary and occupying almost its entire length. Consequently, I consider that due to its Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/21/3268991 2 proximity, height and overall bulk the proposal would appear dominant and overbearing when viewed from the garden of 1 Oakdale Cottages. Given that this garden is relatively small and narrow the impact would be quite significant and would affect almost all of private outdoor amenity space to the rear of 1 Oakdale Cottages, and to a lesser extent the other properties in the terrace which are set at a lower level at the foot of an old quarry crag. 7. Given the above, there would be conflict with Harrogate’s House Extensions and Garages Design Guides 2005 and Policies HP4 and HP8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2020 (HLP) which together, seek to protect residential amenity. Character and Appearance 8. The area surrounding the appeal property is characterised by a broad range of property types and designs. I saw during my site visit that most properties in the vicinity are individually designed and of varying age, scale and architectural style. 9. The proposed extension would introduce built form at first floor level above an existing garage and it would increase the bulk and height of the eastern part of the dwelling. Whilst the extension would be smaller in footprint than the main part of the dwelling, the height of the roof would add considerable bulk which would mean that the extension would not be subservient to the main dwelling. Nonetheless, it would be set back from the forward most elevation and from the highway and in this regard, I do not consider that it would appear incongruous or out of keeping when viewed in the context of the host property or the street scene. 10. Furthermore, I note that overall, the height would still remain lower that the adjacent property at no. 10 Kent Bank and others within the immediate vicinity. I consider that the fenestration design and use of the proposed materials, would complement the varied detailing and material palette that is visible in the surrounding area. 11. For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. It would therefore accord with the requirements of Policy HG3 of the HLP which requires that proposals are designed to respect and retain local distinctiveness. Conclusion 12. I have not found harm in relation to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property or surrounding area. However, the harm I have identified in relation to the living condition of the occupiers of the neighbouring property is a matter of overriding concern. Consequently, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Hunter INSPECTOR