Appeal 3354612

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part first floor extension to the front at [site address] , Kettering, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/0472, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: NK/2024/0472 (Location Plan), TQRQM24218183520253 (Block Plan), PP-13302693 (Existing and [name] and [name], Proposed Section and Site Plan).

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.

Since the determination of the application an updated and revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 12 December

The relevant design policies in the revised Framework are the same as those in the previous Framework and as such I consider there would be no prejudice to any party by considering the development against the relevant policies in the revised Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a pitched roofed porch extension at the front. It is located in a mature well-established residential area and is set back from the road behind a driveway and an open grassed verge. Whilst the properties along [address] are relatively evenly spaced, of comparable scale and form with open plan frontages, there is some variation, in the design and style of the properties in the surrounding area. A number of the dwellings have single and two storey front extensions of varying styles and designs that generally appear as clearly subordinate to the dwellings.

The proposal would entail the construction of a first floor extension with a gabled roof that would project out over the porch in line with the existing front elevation of the property. It would be stepped down below the ridge of the main house and the adjacent property at No. [address] due to the sloping topography of the road.

The appeal property is on a relatively spacious plot and as such the extension would not appear overlarge, relative to the overall plot size. Given the site’s location, sloping topography and open grassed verge including a mature tree along the front of the site, the proposal would only be visible over short distances when passing the site. It would be seen within the context of the current varied architectural styles at the host property and the properties in the surrounding area. Against this backdrop, the scale, form and siting of the proposed first floor extension, stepped down, would not look significantly out of place or excessive in relation to the built form of the host property and the adjacent properties.

The modest overall scale and form of the extension together with the use of matching materials and fenestrations would ensure that the proposed first floor front extension would sit relatively unobtrusively against the built form of the main property. The proposed extension would therefore achieve an appropriate degree of subordination to the host property and as such would limit any significant adverse impacts on the street scene.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed extension would not adversely harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It is consistent with Policy 8 of the [name] 2016 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals respond to the local character and characteristics of the site’s immediate and wider context.

Having regard to the Framework, and in particular paragraph 57, in addition to the standard time limit condition, I have specified the approved plans as this provides certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, I have imposed a condition requiring matching external materials.

For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.