Appeal 3271611

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA)

The appeal site is situated within the CA, the significance of which derives from its historic street pattern and the distinct traditional character and varied layout of its buildings. Dwellings on [address] are more often of a gable sided form and incorporate modestly proportioned window fenestration. Small dormer windows are also common within roof slopes and stone is the predominant facing material. Where alterations have taken place to buildings within the CA, these are generally of proportions that positively reflect the original scale of the host building. No [site address] is a modest detached cottage which displays many of the defining attributes of the surrounding built environment, positively contributing to the character and appearance of the CA.

The East Northamptonshire Householder Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2020) (SPG) includes amongst other things that rear extensions should be designed so they are in proportion when compared with the depth of the original dwelling and that common roof shapes and window types/sizes should be considered as part of an extension.

The proposal would have a similar footprint to the existing single storey rear extension that it would replace. However, due to its single storey height, the existing extension is not highly perceptible from outside the site. By comparison the considerable bulk, height and mass of the roof over the proposed extension would visually compete with the modest scale of the host dwelling in views from [address]. In addition, the large areas of glazing to the rear elevation of the extension would be overtly modern in appearance and would not reflect the modestly scaled fenestration generally seen in the CA. This glazing would be visible from neighbouring properties as well as from the street in views over the lower section of boundary wall serving [name] on [address].

For the above reasons, and in the context of paragraph 196 of the Framework, I consider that the development would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the CA. In accordance with the Framework this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Any benefits to the charactered and appearance of the CA that would derived through the removal of the poorly related existing single storey rear extension would be relatively limited given it is not highly appreciable from the public realm. The dwelling is currently vacant and there is some third-party support for its renovation and re-use. However, I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that the design of the proposal is the only way to facilitate this. I must attach great importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the character or appearance of the CA. I find therefore that there are not public benefits of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA.

I conclude, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the CA. In that regard, the development would conflict with the aims to conserve distinctive local character and to preserve the historic environment in Policies 2 ([name]) and 8 ([address] [name]) of the [name] (2016) and the Framework. The development would also conflict with the design requirements of the SPG.

My attention has been drawn to a planning permission relating to the conversion of a workshop into annexe accommodation at No [address]. From the limited evidence before me, this particular development is not comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of its relationship with the host building or the wider street scene. The glazing on an extension at The Paddocks does not convince me that large window openings positively reflect the proportions of window fenestration more commonly seen in the CA.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.