Single storey Garage to front of property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 May 2026 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2026 Appeal Reference: 6007052 3 Hazel Crescent, Towcester, West Northamptonshire NN12 6UQ • 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 Mr. Paul Jennings against the decision of West Northamptonshire Council. • The application reference is 2026/0157/FULL. • The development proposed is described in the application form as a “single storey Garage to front of property”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in a residential suburb of Towcester, with a school nearby. Hazel Crescent is a loop road off Springfields, which is a busier through route, and the area is laid out in a meandering street pattern, with short branching culs-de-sac and individual houses laid out irregularly along the road frontages. The houses in this development are harmonious in design, making use of a consistent palette of building materials and architectural forms. In consequence, the townscape has a specific local character and a human scale. 4. Number 3 Hazel Crescent is a good-sized two-storey house, with a single-storey double garage alongside the main part of the house. The building is constructed of brickwork, under tiled, pitched roofs and it stands on a larger plot with a wider frontage than many other properties in the development. This house is set back from the roadside, with a front garden that is mainly laid to grass, while others are set much closer to the road, including the neighbouring house at number 5 Hazel Crescent. 5. Access to the back garden is obtained by a pedestrian path alongside the gable wall of the two-storey part of the house, while the gable of the single-storey garage is built up to its boundary with number 5. The house at number 5 is set back from this side boundary, with a small tree alongside it. Appeal Decision: 6007052 2 6. It is now proposed to build a detached single-storey garage at the front of number 3 Hazel Crescent. 7. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. The Framework is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. 8. Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. Policy SA of the ‘West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1)’ (which was adopted in December 2014) is a general Policy that promotes sustainable development, subject to compliance with other policies. Policy SS2 of the ‘South Northamptonshire Part 2 Local Plan 2011-2029’ (which was adopted in July 2020) similarly deals with “General Development and Design Principles” but it includes a specific focus on design issues, and it points out the need to respect local character, among other things. 9. The Council’s ‘South Northamptonshire Design Guide’ is also relevant, but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan. 10. The proposed new garage would be sited forward of the existing house at number 3 but approximately in line with the house at number 5. This irregular pattern of development is in character with the surroundings in a pleasant suburban location. In principle, a well-designed single-storey garage projecting forward at this location could be unobjectionable. 11. Nevertheless, the scheme that is the subject of this appeal presents some clear deficiencies. The garage would be a large structure, with an awkward relationship to the existing building, standing in front of the existing garage doors. It would have an almost pyramidal roof shape, out of keeping with other buildings nearby, while the wide double door for cars would be unattractive in its setting, whereas a more human scale can be achieved, by subdividing such elements. Most of the existing front garden would be taken up by the new garage and associated paved hardstanding. 12. Overall, the scheme would be unduly hard and intrusive, and the garage itself would be unsympathetic to its surroundings and unsatisfactory in design. I am convinced that the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the existing house and to the streetscene outweigh the benefits of the project. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. 13. Although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, including submissions made by third parties and the impact of on- street parking in Hazel Crescent, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 14. In reaching these conclusions I have considered whether the appeal could be allowed but subject to conditions that would overcome the design issues that I have identified (having regard to the Council’s ‘Design Guide’). In view of all the Appeal Decision: 6007052 3 uncertainties involved, however, I have formed the opinion that it would not be possible to frame precise conditions to deal with the objections that I have identified and that therefore this appeal must be dismissed. Roger C. Shrimplin INSPECTOR