First floor extension over garage, including the removal of the existing chimney

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 April 2019 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/D/19/3223995 17 Spring Gardens, Earls Barton, Northampton, NN6 0NJ • 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 Mrs Amanda Mayne against the decision of Wellingborough Borough Council. • The application Ref WP/18/00662/FUL, dated 22 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 December 2018. • The development proposed is a first floor extension over garage, including the removal of the existing chimney. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, which is situated in a residential cul-de-sac. Spring Gardens is characterised generally by semi- detached dwellings that are similar in appearance and scale to the appeal property. A noticeable feature of the streetscene is the gaps at first floor level between most of the dwellings. In my view, these visual gaps are important as they give a relatively spacious appearance around the properties. 4. The proposal is to construct a first floor extension above an existing garage. Construction of the extension would also require the removal of the existing chimney at the property. The extension would provide an additional bedroom at the rear and an extended bedroom at the front of the dwelling. It would be built up to and along the shared side boundary with the neighbouring dwelling at number 15 Spring Gardens (number 15). 5. Policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy states (amongst other things) that new development should respond to and be in character with the context of the site and its surroundings. In addition, the Council’s Supplementary Guidance – A Guide to Good Design, provides criteria against which proposals for house extensions will be assessed. These include the effect of a proposal on the character of the area and on the host dwelling. The guidance also states that two storey extensions that are proposed up to side boundaries will be discouraged. Appeal Decision APP/H2835/D/19/3223995 2 6. I consider that the above policy and guidance accords with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the Framework), which contains similar provisions. 7. The Council considers that the proposal would unbalance the pair of semi- detached dwellings, of which the appeal property is a part. Whilst this would be the case, I am not persuaded that the development, in that regard, would be unacceptable. However, although the front of the proposed extension would be set back slightly from the front wall of the existing dwelling (an amendment to the plans as originally submitted to the Council) and it would have a slightly lower ridge height, it would still result in a significant reduction to the gap at first floor level between the property and number 15. As stated above, these visual gaps are a distinctive and important feature of Spring Gardens. 8. The positioning of the property on a bend in the road, would also mean that when viewed from either side, the remaining gap between the properties would be barely visible, thus giving a cramped and congested appearance to the streetscene at this point. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan and with the Framework, as referred to above. 9. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the existence of other first floor and two storey side extensions on Spring Gardens, including those at numbers 3, 4 and 6. However, each case must be dealt with on its merits and I consider that the particular circumstances relating to the appeal proposal justify my decision. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR