Erection of a 2, 1.5 and single storey side, rear and front extension (including building over an existing single storey part of the dwelling), and erection of a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 July 2023 by Mrs Chris Pipe BA(Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:28 July 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/D/23/3321064 The Wain House, Church Lane, Goadby LE7 9EX • 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 Martin and Veronica Taylor against the decision of Harborough District Council. • The application Ref 22/01891/FUL dated 27 October 2022, was refused by notice dated 16 February 2023. • The development proposed is erection of a 2, 1.5 and single storey side, rear and front extension (including building over an existing single storey part of the dwelling), and erection of a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted the amended description in the heading above. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of existing property and area in general; and (ii) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The site is a large, detached property in a predominantly residential area within a small village. The appeal site is located in a prominent position at a street- head position within Church Lane. 5. The proposed front and side extension would project further forward than the existing single storey garage and would increase the height of the pitched roof to incorporate a first floor. Despite the difference in levels between the appeal site which is elevation in comparison to the adjacent property, The Granaries, the proposed development would be similar in scale to the outbuilding at Home Farm House and the projecting front feature at The Granaries. Appeal Decision APP/F2415/D/23/3321064 2 6. The proposed front and side extension whilst substantial would be subordinate in scale to the existing property and would reflect the vernacular of surrounding properties. The alterations to the rear are modest in scale and design and would not be out of keeping. 7. Although the proposed development would increase the mass of the existing property the proposed development would not be unsympathetic or incongruous to the property or streetscene. 8. I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the existing property and area in general. There is no conflict with Policies GD3 and GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 (2019) (the Local Plan) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of high quality design which respects the design of the original property and surrounding area. 9. There is no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments are of good design which adds to the overall quality of an area. Living Conditions 10. The Council do not raise concern regarding the proposed single storey rear extension and its effect on Brae house, nor the front extension and the effect on The Granaries, I do not disagree. 11. The Granaries is orientated slightly toward the appeal site, the appeal site is elevation in terms of ground level to that of the adjacent property. 12. The proposed side extension will result in a decrease in daylight in the morning to the Granaries, as demonstrated by the Solar Analysis contained within the Design and Access Statement however overshadowing already occurs and I am not persuaded that the proposed development would create such a decrease in daylight which would warrant a refusal. 13. The increase in height of the single storey built form which projects towards the shared boundary with The Granaries would be dominant to the adjacent occupiers. In light of the difference in levels and orientation of the properties, the proposed side extension would be overbearing to the habitable room and patio area directly adjacent the shared boundary. 14. The windows/doors and Juliet balcony at first floor would allow overlooking of the neighbouring garden, however there are already windows in the rear elevation of the appeal property whilst a larger area to view from this would not exacerbate the overlooking situation that exists. 15. Nonetheless I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of The Granaries by virtue of the proposed side extension being overbearing and stark. 16. There is conflict with Policy GD8 of the Local Plan which amongst other things seek to protect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. There is conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters Appeal Decision APP/F2415/D/23/3321064 3 17. There are Listed Buildings within the immediate area. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act) requires decision makers, when considering whether to grant planning permission, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any feature of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The appeal site is not a Listed Building. 18. Views toward the Church which is listed are limited. Opposite the site is Home Farm which is a Listed Building along with an outbuilding to the front. I noted during my site visit that the proposed development would not restrict views of the adjacent Listed Buildings. 19. The proposal would not detract from the features of adjacent buildings and would not diminish the setting of Listed Buildings. I find that the proposed development would not harm designated heritage assets. Conclusion 20. I have found that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area or existing property, however this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of living conditions of occupiers of The Granaries. 21. For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. C Pipe INSPECTOR