Two storey side extension, first floor rear extension and ground floor link to annex

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 August 2026 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009400 95 Otley Road, Harrogate, HG2 0DU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Craig Taylor against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 26/00212/FUL. • The development proposed is two storey side extension, first floor rear extension and ground floor link to annex. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extension, first floor rear extension and ground floor link to annex at 95 Otley Road, Harrogate, HG2 0DU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00212/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 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; Block Plan Revision E; Proposed Elevations Revision AA; and Proposed Plans Revision AA. 3) Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the window on the rear elevation - south shall be fitted with obscured glazing, details of which shall first be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The window shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and reenacting that Order), no windows shall be inserted in the side elevation - west of the extension hereby approved, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of the development given with the appeal differs from that given on the planning application form and decision notice. I have used the description as given in the planning application documents as this accurately reflects the proposal. 3. The Council requested that I view the appeal site from 1 Hill Rise Avenue, and I was able to do so at my visit. I also viewed the appeal site from 3 Hill Rise Avenue. Appeal Decision 6009400 2 4. A revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in August 2026 but there are no material changes relevant to the substance of the appeal. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents in respect of outlook and privacy. Reasons 6. The appeal site consists of a semi-detached dwelling, with a side elevation that faces onto the rear of properties on Hill Rise Avenue. Planning permission has previously been granted for a development including a single storey side extension, first floor rear extension and ground floor link to existing annex, amongst other things. The evidence suggests that the previous planning permission had been amended to remove a 2-storey side extension due to concerns about the proximity with the boundary and windows to the rear of 1 Hill Rise Avenue. 7. The submitted plans which form the basis of this appeal reflect the previously approved scheme, albeit that the proposal includes a 2-storey extension of a reduced scale compared to the extension that was removed from the previous scheme. The Council remains concerned about the separation distance of the extension from the rear of No 1, and specify that the separation distance would not comply with its House Extensions and Garages Design Guide 2005 (HEGDG) regarding the separation distance from bedroom windows. 8. However, the dwelling at No 1 is set higher than the appeal site. The appeal proposal also includes a hipped roof which reduces the scale and massing of the side extension in relation to No 1 due to the slope of the roof down towards the boundary. Due to the design of the proposal and the elevated position of No 1, particularly the elevated outlook provided by the upper rear windows, the proposal would not be an obtrusive or overdominant feature in views from the upper windows of No 1. 9. The proposal would also be apparent from the rear external amenity area and ground floor windows of No 1, particularly from windows serving a kitchen/utility room. However, that room is also served by windows on 2 other elevations which do not face onto the appeal site. The impact of the proposal on the outlook from ground floor windows and the amenity area is further mitigated by the elevated position of No 1, the design of the proposal and an intervening outbuilding. The proposal would therefore not harm the outlook from the ground floor rooms or amenity areas of No 1. 10. There are no windows or other openings on the proposal facing towards No 1, and the proposal would therefore not harm the privacy of residents of No 1. 11. The occupant of 3 Hill Rise Avenue has also expressed concern about the proposal, including in respect of overbearing impact, sense of enclosure and loss of privacy. However, there is a significant separation distance between the proposed 2-storey side extension and No 3, which would mitigate any overbearing or enclosing impacts. There are other elements of the appeal proposal which are located closer to No 3 than the side extension, but these reflect the extensions previously approved and do not therefore weigh against the appeal proposal. Appeal Decision 6009400 3 There is a window on the rear elevation which would face towards No 3, but this is indicated as having obscured glazing and this can be ensured by condition. Due to the separation distance, site history and the use of obscured glazing the proposal would not materially harm the privacy or outlook of residents of No 3. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of nearby residents in respect of outlook and privacy. The proposal would therefore not be contrary to the amenity requirements of Policies HP4 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2020. Although the proposal would not strictly comply with the separation distances recommended by the HEGDG regarding No 1, this does not represent sufficient reason to withhold planning permission due to the mitigating effects of the design of the proposal and the relative height of No 1. Other Matters 13. A third party has submitted that the proposal represents a regression from the previously approved scheme. However, I must determine this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans. Although a 2-storey extension had been removed from a previous proposal, the appeal proposal is of a smaller scale than the previously proposed 2-storey side extension and based on its own merits I consider that the appeal scheme is acceptable. The proposal would increase the amount of accommodation at the appeal site. However, this increase would be limited and the Council has concluded that there would be sufficient parking and that it does not represent a significant intensification of the use of the site. Based on what I have seen and read I have no reason to disagree. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard 3 year time limitation for commencement, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans in the interests of certainty. Due to the nature of the room served by the window on the rear elevation, a condition requiring the installation of obscured glazing is necessary in the interests of privacy. Exceptionally, due to the proximity to No 1, a condition removing permitted development rights for windows on the side elevation is necessary in the interests of the privacy of neighbouring residents. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. David Cross INSPECTOR