Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2026 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:04 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008135 31 Peverels Way, Northampton, NN5 5DD • 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 Lalani against the decision of West Northamptonshire Council. • The application Ref is 2024/5677/FULL. • The development proposed is a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension at 31 Peverels Way, Northampton, NN5 5DD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/5677/FULL, 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: 602SK01 Rev F, 602SK02 Rev F, 6025D01 Rev B, 602SD02 Rev D. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The extensions hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing no 602SK02 Rev F. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles. Main Issue 2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the adjoining terrace and the street scene of Peverels Way. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a traditional, end of terrace house at the end of a cul-de-sac of similar dwellings. It has a hipped pitched roof over a brick and painted render façade with two storey bay. The dwelling is on a noticeably wider plot than most of its neighbours with a wide paved area to the side. This is partly obstructed to the rear by an existing single storey rear/side extension, leaving a pedestrian access to the rear garden. The dwelling has a rear vehicular access via an unmade track off Appeal Decision Ref: 6008135 2 Peverels Way which provides rear access to the dwellings on the north-east side of the street. There is a small garage and adjacent hardstanding at the rear of the garden at the appeal dwelling. 4. Peverels Way slopes down towards the appeal dwelling and beyond this, separated from the street by industrial fencing, is an industrial estate with large buildings. A number of frontages in Peverels Way have been paved to enable off street parking, particularly at dwellings on the opposite side of the street to the appeal property. 5. The proposed development comprises a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The footprint of the existing single storey rear/side extension would be incorporated into the proposed rear extension and a small conservatory, close to the boundary with the adjoining property, would be removed. 6. The two storey side extension would project some 2m from the side elevation of the existing dwelling, noticeably less than half its width. The extension would be set back from the front elevation and the pitched, hipped roof would be set down from the main roof. It would maintain subservience to the host building as required by the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide, adopted 2011. Overall, it would be a proportionate and well designed addition to the dwelling that would complement the host building and be sympathetic to the street scene of Peverels Way and the surrounding area. 7. The single storey rear extension would be some 8m deep and would have a flat roof. Whilst this would be a significant addition, single storey rear extensions are characteristic in the adjoining row. Although these are shallower, the end terrace position of the appeal dwelling, the offset location of the proposed extension, some 2m from the shared boundary with the adjoining neighbour, and the much larger industrial buildings beyond the side boundary to the south-east would ensure that it did not appear incongruous or unduly dominant in the area. In addition, it would have no effect on the character or appearance of the street scene. 8. The Council suggests that, taken together, the extensions would result in a disproportionate increase in built form and overall floorspace. However, whilst there would be a significant increase in floorspace, especially at ground floor level, this would not, in itself, be unacceptable. Moreover, the large rear garden at the appeal dwelling, together with the off-set position of the rear extension in relation to the adjoining neighbour, would ensure that the extensions were not cramped or overbearing and there was no overdevelopment of the plot. 9. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed extensions would have no materially detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the host dwelling, the adjoining terrace or the street scene of Peverels Way. In consequence, they would comply with Policies Q1 and Q2 of the Northampton Local Plan, Part 2, 2011-2029, adopted 2023. Taken together and amongst other things, these expect new development to be designed to promote good placemaking though high quality, beautiful and sustainable design that creates and protects a high standard of amenity for occupiers and, in particular, is not overbearing to existing buildings. 10. Third parties raise a number of additional concerns. Firstly, they identify parking stress in Peverels Way and suggest that the proposed increase in the size of the dwelling would result in additional on-street parking demand, especially since the existing space for parking to the side of the dwelling would be lost. The Council’s Appeal Decision Ref: 6008135 3 parking standard for a house with four or more bedrooms is a minimum of three off- street parking spaces. Although only one space would remain to the front, the proposed development includes the demolition of the existing small garage and the creation of two dedicated spaces with a pedestrian visibility splay to the rear of the garden. The existing gates would be removed to allow easy access. 11. Objectors suggest that the access track serving the rear access is unsuitable for regular use. However, whilst it does not appear to be heavily used, it is long- standing and provides access to rear parking and garages serving most of the dwellings on the north-east side of Peverels Way and other properties to the rear. I therefore see no reason why it could not be used to provide regular rear access to the appeal property. Moreover, the Highways Authority raises no concerns, noting that the proposal retains adequate off-street parking in line with adopted standards. It suggests that compliance with the proposed parking provision is secured. This can be achieved through a planning condition. For the avoidance of doubt, I will impose a suitable condition requiring such compliance. 12. Third parties also raise concerns regarding the future use of the dwelling, suggesting that it may be used as a care facility (C2) or as a house in multiple occupation (C4). However, the appellant has confirmed in writing that the house is to be used as a single family dwelling. Moreover, any change of use would need to be the subject of a further planning application to the Council, which would be judged on its own merits. The appeal before me concerns only the proposed extensions and alterations which I have judged on their own merits, as I am bound to do. 13. Turning to conditions, I agree with the Council that, in addition to the statutory commencement condition, conditions are needed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in materials to match the existing dwelling. These are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to protect the character and appearance of the area. As set out above and as suggested by the Highways Authority, I will also impose a condition requiring the proposed parking provision to be provided before the extensions are brought into use. This is to avoid additional on street parking demand in Peverels Way. 14. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR