Appeal 3298011

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 98 and [address].

The appeal site is a semi-detached house and the proposed extensions comprise single and two-storey elements. A single storey element would extend close to the boundary with the adjoining house No [address] to the boundary with No 100. On the other side of the house, a larger single and two-storey element would be closest to the boundary with No [site address] which is separated from No 100 by a narrow passage to the side of each dwelling. No 102 has a single storey lean-to closest to the boundary with the main part of the house set further away. The lean-to window in the rear elevation serves a dining room.

Core Strategy1 Policy S10 seeks to achieve the highest level of sustainable design, amongst other things. Local Plan2 policy E20 requires the design of development to ensure adequate standards of privacy, daylight and sunlight and Policy H18 refers to the effect of extensions to dwellings on adjoining properties. The Council SPD3 for residential extensions provides further guidance, in particular, where rear extensions can cause a loss of outlook, 1 [name] Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted – December 2014. 2 Northampton Borough Council Northampton Local Plan 1993-2006, [name] 1997 [name]. [name]. 3 Northamptonshire Borough Council Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, [name] 2011 (SPD). overshadowing or have an overbearing impact. The SPD also requires extensions to comply with ‘the 45 [name] which is explained in Appendix 7 of the SPD.

The proximity of the extension to the boundary shared with No 98 would be such that the length of the projection and its proximity to the boundary would have an adverse effect. It would appear prominent and result in some loss of light as well as presenting an intrusive outlook. It would breach the 45 [name] and so conflict with the SPD as well as the policies referred to.

In terms of No 102, the proposed development would be set a little way from the boundary due to the space between the houses but it would still present a substantial and intrusive development. It would represent a significant rear projection at single storey level and although the first floor element of the extension would be set back from the single storey part, given the additional height of a two-storey extension, its impact would be substantial. It would result in loss of light to this neighbour as well as appearing intrusive and overbearing. It would breach the 45 [name] to a lesser degree than to No 98 but with the added first floor its impact would be exacerbated. In this respect the proposal would conflict with the SPD and the policies referred to.

The proposal includes a hardstanding to the front of the house and a dropped kerb. At the time of my site visit there was no boundary wall/fence to the front of the site and the land had been disturbed and was being used to park on. Although this is not referred to in the reasons for refusal, it does have an impact on the character and appearance of the area. However, once surfaced in block paving as shown on the submitted plans is not likely to be sufficiently harmful as to withhold planning permission.

I have also considered the National Planning Policy Framework4 as well as the emerging Local Plan5. The Council indicate that the latter has been before its Full Council (18 January 2021) and submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. No further update has been provided and I consider that I am able to determine the appeal on the basis of the approved development plan documents. No matters have been raised which would contradict this.

I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 98 and [site address] . It would conflict with policies S10, E20 and H18 and the SPD. The appeal therefore fails.