Appeal 3319537

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion and extension to front of garage at [site address] , Northampton, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2022/1295, dated 24 November 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan 1:1250/Proposed Block Plan 1:500 ([name] and Extension to Front of Garage at [site address] ) and [name] B67 – 1 (Plans & [name] & Proposed).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing garage building.

Since its decision on the planning application which led to this appeal, the Council has adopted the Northampton Local Plan Part 2 (March 2023) (LPP2). This supersedes the policies of the ‘emerging local plan’ and the ‘1997 Northampton Plan’ both of which are referred to in the Council’s decision. I have therefore considered the appeal against the policies of the up-to-date development plan provided by the Council, these being Policies Q1 (Placemaking and Design), Q2 (Amenity and Layout) and MO4 ([name]) of the LPP2 and Policy H1 ([name] and Mix and Type of Housing) of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) (WNJCS).

The reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice states amongst other things that the proposal would have ‘a negative impact on neighbour amenity by being overbearing’. The delegated report which accompanies the decision suggests that the development would ‘dominate or be overbearing upon a neighbour’s garden or property’. It also states that the proposal ‘adversely impacts the neighbour’s parking as the extension will dominate the driveways causing parking issues’. I have therefore taken both of these matters into account in defining the main issues.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: (a) the character and appearance of the area; (b) parking provision for both the host dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling at No [address]; and (c) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is located within a residential area and [address] is characterised by two-storey semi-detached dwellings. The semi-detached pairs are linked by a first-floor level overhang above their driveways. These driveways lead to detached garage buildings to the rear.

The extension would differentiate the outbuilding from other garages on the street. Even so, given its single storey scale and position towards the rear of the site, the proposal would have a discreet presence in the street scene. The proposed drawings indicate that matching materials would be utilised. As a result of these factors the proposal would acceptably assimilate into its surroundings.

I conclude, the development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, the proposal would comply with the design and character requirements of Policies Q1 and Q2 of the LPP2 and Policy H1 of the WNJCS. For the same reasons the proposal would comply with the guidance at Paragraph 7.18 of the Northampton Borough Council Residential Extensions and Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2011) ([name]).

The dwellings on [address] more often have off-street parking facilities. On my site visit, while only a snapshot of parking habits in the area, I noted that some vehicles were also parked on the highway on [address].

The Northamptonshire Parking Standards (2016) sets out minimum parking standards for new dwellings and in this regard is not wholly applicable to the appeal proposal. The parking requirements for existing dwellings are set out in the Northampton Borough Council Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2019) ([name]) which confirms amongst other things that single garages are not counted as parking spaces and that an extension which results in the loss of an existing parking space may require that a replacement parking space is provided.

The Parking SPD does not set out a minimum number of parking spaces to be retained on existing dwellings. I therefore consider that consideration of cases where there may be a loss of an existing parking space is a matter of planning judgement on a case-to-case basis.

In line with the [name], the conversion of the garage would not in itself result in the loss of a recognised parking space. As a result of the extension’s projection forward of the garage, the driveway serving the host dwelling would be reduced in depth. Even so, the remaining sections of driveway are sufficient to accommodate at least one vehicle for each dwelling and potentially a second vehicle depending on the length of the vehicles parked. The host dwelling also has a block paved parking area to its frontage sufficient to accommodate a further vehicle. The Council’s delegated report confirms that the development would result in an appropriate number of parking spaces in accordance with the [name]. Given my own observations, I do not disagree.

The guidance in the [name] suggests that where parking spaces are adjacent to walls or other solid features, they should have a minimum width of 3.3m. A section of the neighbouring driveway at No [address] would sit alongside the extension. The Council suggests that the resultant space within this neighbouring curtilage would not meet the minimum dimension in the [name]. The appellant contends it would only be just under this measurement. Without evidence to suggest otherwise, any conflict with the guidance within the [name] would therefore be likely to be marginal.

Either way, I accept that there is the potential that the side wall of the extension would restrict the extent to which car doors could be opened on this section of the neighbouring driveway. However, there is nothing before me to suggest that the neighbour can always rely on space outside the curtilage of their own property to facilitate getting in or out of their vehicles. For example, a similar situation could already arise in a scenario where neighbouring vehicles are parked alongside each other. In any case, such access rights would be a private legal matter.

Notwithstanding the above, the remaining section of the neighbouring driveway is sufficient to accommodate at least one vehicle and possibly more depending on vehicle lengths. Any overspill parking on to [address] or other local streets is therefore likely to be limited. There is no detailed evidence before me to suggest that there are levels of parking stress in the area such that a limited number of vehicles could not be accommodated on the street or that such parking would result in any significant inconvenience for users of the highway. Therefore, even if the proposal does not fully accord with the guidance in the [name], I am not persuaded that there would be any material planning harm in this particular instance.

I conclude that the development would have an acceptable effect on parking provision both for the host dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling at No [address] having regard to the parking requirements in Policy MO4 of the LPP2.

Due to its single storey scale and its position set away from the garden and windows serving the nearest neighbouring dwelling at No [address], the proposal would not be overbearing and suitable means of outlook would be retained for occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling.

I conclude the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No [address] with particular regard to outlook. In that regard, the proposal would comply with the amenity requirements in Policy Q2 of the LPP2, Policy H1 of the WNJCS and the [name].

In terms of the concerns of third parties not already covered under the main issues, there is no objective evidence before me to suggest that the proposal would have a material effect on the value of neighbouring property.

I have attached the standard timescale for commencement of the development and a condition confirming the approved drawings in the interests of certainty. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the proposal is of an acceptable appearance, I also attach a condition requiring that the materials utilised in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match those used on the existing garage building.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.