First floor side extension

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 4 March 2019 by Michael Wood RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L2820/D/18/3218065 Sunblest Cottage, 4 Bakehouse Hill, Geddington NN14 1BH • The appeal is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Bartley against the decision of Kettering Borough Council. • The application Ref KET/2018/0472, dated 20 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 September 2018. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1 The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension at Sunblest Cottage, 4 Bakehouse Hill, Geddington NN14 1BH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref KET/2018/0472, dated 20 June 2018, 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: existing plan B/632/01 and proposed plan B/632/02C Main Issue 2 The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the house and the area. Reasons 3 The appeal is in relation to a first floor extension to a two bedroom house in the Geddington Conservation Area. Sunblest Cottage is a two storey house constructed partly from the remains of a stone barn in the 1970s. The extension would be formed by raising the roof of the existing kitchen which is set one side of the original barn at the rear of the property. The extension would provide very little outward change keeping the lower ridge running into the existing roof at right angles. The new upper floor would accommodate a third Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/18/3218065 2 bedroom within the roof shape. This floor would be constructed with the roof springing from the existing eaves level with a pitch matching the main roof. The width of the side extension, being narrower than the main house, would produce a lower, subservient roof line. The room in the roof arrangement has led to the proposed introduction of a dormer window which would provide a view along the street. All of the proposed materials would match those on the existing house and the dormer window would replicate two such original dormer windows on the first floor of the house. In undertaking the work on the extension, the Appellants would enhance the existing fabric by rendering over exposed brickwork in the existing walls. The Appellants would intend to do this because a specialist listed building adviser indicated that the brickwork appears out of place on the building. In their view the render will be a major improvement as it will enhance the appearance of the building and enable it to blend well with its neighbours. This contradicts the view in the officer’s report which indicates that it is the render which will be out of place. The Council have not provided an appraisal in support of this view. 4 The refusal states that an unacceptable change of form results in an unduly bulky extension which would be visually dominating. From my visit to the site I was able to see that the existing single storey extension appears as an appendage without a balanced relationship with the rest of the house. The existing pitch of the kitchen roof is depressed at eaves level to an angle out of character with the principle roof. The proposed upper floor would create a massing which together with the steeper roof proposed would be in keeping with the form of the cottage as well as surrounding properties. The side extension would be subservient through being a considerably smaller part of the building with a proportionately smaller roof and a lower ridge. Sunblest Cottage is independent of the row of other houses in Bakehouse Hill. The extension would not impact adversely on the significance of the row of historic houses on the opposite side of the street. 5 The extension would use the same materials as the existing building and render would cover the exposed brickwork. In doing so the appellants would be drawing on local distinctive character by responding to the immediate and wider context. The Council have not suggested any conditions but I have attached two conditions which are necessary for precision and for the avoidance of doubt. The extension would be in accordance with Policy 8(d)(i) of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 and would not harm either the character or the appearance of either the host building or the surrounding area. Conclusion 6 The appeal is therefore allowed. Michael Wood Inspector Appeal Decision APP/L2820/D/18/3218065 3