For a proposed first floor extension over garage and alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2026 by Andrew Fuller BSc (Hons), Dip TP, MA, MRTPI, IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012165 9 Neale Close, Northampton, West Northamptonshire NN3 3DB • 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 & Mrs Calder against the decision of West Northamptonshire Council. • The application Ref is 2026/1733/FULL. • The development is for a proposed first floor extension over garage and alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner above is taken from the application form and the appellant has continued to use this description in this appeal. The Council amended the description to reflect the two-storey component of the proposal. The submitted plans show the proposal to constitute a part two-storey and part single storey first floor front extension over the garage. Accordingly, I have dealt with the appeal on this basis. 3. A new emerging local plan for the whole of West Northamptonshire was published for consultation between 8 April and 2 June 2024. The local plan is still in the early stages of preparation, whilst its policies are a material consideration, I afford them limited weight at this stage. 4. During the course of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision. References hereafter are to the August 2026 version. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area. Reasons 6. The appeal site is situated within a residential cul-de-sac of properties that are organised in a staggered layout with no established building lines. Most properties are bungalows and are of a variety of sizes and designs, including a range of roof forms, which together give the street its varied character. Some properties have first floor accommodation, including No 8a Neale Close, which is adjacent to, and set forwards of the appeal site. Appeal Decision 6012165 2 7. The appeal property comprises a bungalow with a distinctive linear form running parallel to the road. Along with an existing forward facing gable element, it displays a relatively consistent arrangement of shallow roof pitches. The appeal proposal seeks to extend part of the property forwards to form a garage with a first-floor gabled element above it, adjacent to No 8a. The introduction of a first-floor level of accommodation would be visually disproportionate, sat elevated above and to one side of the property. Its form would appear excessively bulky relative to the existing proportions of the bungalow, with a steeper roof pitch that would not assimilate with those across the rest of the existing property. 8. The proposed development would be set back from the front alignment of No 8a and would broadly match its height. However, the height and form of the proposed gable would exceed that of this neighbour’s glazed first floor gable and other gabled components to properties in the street. Whilst matching materials would reflect that of the appeal property, as well as that of No 8a, it would not overcome the dominant and uncharacteristic scale it would introduce into the street. 9. The piers and cladding enclosing the car port would only be clearly visible along one side of the proposed development, whilst the other would face the boundary. Given that this would be a limited component of the overall design it would not dominate its appearance. Along with the proposed windows and garage door, these sections of cladding would broadly reflect other design elements of the existing bungalow. 10. In making my decision, I have had regard to both the Framework and the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (Design SPD). Together they promote development that responds well to its context. Despite the varied design of properties along Neale Close, both the increased scale and elevated massing of the proposed development would appear incongruous to the surrounding area. Moreover, the proposed development would lack cohesion and appear out of character on this property. It would thereby also fail to meet the Design SPD requirements for extensions to be well formed, shaped, balanced and of good proportions to the existing dwelling. 11. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area. As such, it conflicts with Policy Q1 of the Northampton Local Plan Part 2 2011-2029 (2023) which requires, amongst other things, for development to promote and contribute to good placemaking through high quality, beautiful and sustainable design. Other Matters 12. Revisions to the height, as well as alterations to the garage component, of the proposed development during the course of the planning application have been brought to my attention. These changes and discussions weigh neither for nor against the appeal scheme; my decision is necessarily based on the scheme before me. 13. The site lies adjacent to the Weston Favell Conservation Area (CA). Heritage matters do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. As such, being outside of the CA there is no requirements to undertake the statutory duty set out under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Appeal Decision 6012165 3 Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). The Council found no harm to the setting of the CA due to the proposed development position and orientation, I also find no harm. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fuller INSPECTOR