Two storey side front and rear extensions, single storey front side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2018 by Paul Cooper MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/D/18/3207011 2 Leadhall View, Harrogate HG2 9PF  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 James and Anna Isle against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council.  The application Ref 6.79.13704.FUL, dated 2 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2018.  The development proposed is two storey side front and rear extensions, single storey front side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side front and rear extensions, single storey front side and rear extensions at 2 Leadhall View, Harrogate HG2 9PF, in accordance with the application Ref: 6.79.13704.FUL dated 2 March 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; Site Plan; LV.(02)/01 As Existing; LV.(02)/02 As Proposed (Rev C) 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal of the character and appearance of the area and the effect on the living conditions of adjacent residents. Reasons 3. The Council’s concerns relate to the first floor side extension adjacent to ‘The Folly’ and there is no dispute with regard to the effect of the other elements of the application. Similarly, there is no dispute regarding the other extensions in design terms. I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3207011 2 Character and Appearance 4. Leadhall View is a cul-de-sac of detached properties of various designs. The wider area is characterised by residential development. The appeal property is constructed of brick with render treatment. 5. The overall appeal proposal is for single storey front and rear extensions, and a two storey side extension. An existing garage would be removed to facilitate the two storey side extension. 6. I have noted the concerns of the Council with regard to the proximity of the proximity of the two storey extension to the adjacent dwelling. However, the adjacent property ‘The Folly’ has an almost vertical side elevation with hung roof tiles. As the proposed side extension would not project any closer to the adjacent dwelling, and given the considerable difference in the design aspects of the two properties, this would leave a clear gap between the two properties. I find that the proposal would not cause a terracing effect, nor would it give the outward appearance of one sprawling structure. 7. As such, I find that the appeal proposals would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and are consistent with Policies H15 and HD20 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (adopted 2001) (the LP), Policy SG4 of the Harrogate District Core Strategy (adopted 2009) (the CS) and the House Extensions & Garages Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) which, when taken as a whole, amongst other matters, state that proposals should be consistent with the character and appearance of the area, respect the scale, character and height of adjacent buildings and avoid the terracing effect from side extensions to dwellings. Living Conditions 8. The design of ‘The Folly’, as stated previously, has an almost vertical roof slope on the elevation facing toward the appeal proposal. As a result there are no windows at first floor level, and the ground floor side windows and doorway are obscurely glazed. The roof slope has a small number of solar panels on the profile, but from my site visit it would appear that they have sustained some damage, and given that no objections were raised on the basis of the potential loss of sunlight, I am unsure as to whether they are operative. 9. A garden room is located toward the rear of ‘The Folly’ but this appears to be used for the storage of plants and household items, and not in active residential use. I have noted the concerns of the Council with regard to the provision of the rear first floor window with a Juliet balcony. However, I find that given the proposal is not for a formal balcony where users could sit outside, there would be no difference in the relationship that normally results from the relationship between two adjacent dwellings in a residential environment. 10. Given the existing relationship between the two dwellings, I am satisfied that the construction of a two storey extension to the appeal property would not lead to any significant effect on the living conditions to the occupiers of ‘The Folly’ from the two-storey element of the appeal proposal, and as a result, I do not find any conflict with Policies H15 and HD20 of the LP, Policy SG4 of the CS and the SPD which, amongst other matters, state that proposals should protect residential amenity, and cause no adverse effect to adjacent property. Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3207011 3 Conditions 11. It is necessary to impose the three year time limit and a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. Condition 3 is imposed to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is protected Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Cooper INSPECTOR