Appeal 6004834

The appeal is dismissed.

There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the street scene of [address]; and secondly, the effect of the first floor side extension on the living conditions of occupiers at [address] with respect to outlook, privacy and overlooking.

The appeal dwelling is situated on a short section of [address] that forms a cul-de-sac. It has a semi-rural character, despite its proximity to a busy dual carriageway. It is separated from this by a bank with mature trees and undergrowth. Further trees and vegetation in the street and within properties, together with the narrow carriageway, open space to the south and very large plots with dwellings generally set back from the street add to this character.

The appeal dwelling sits on a particularly wide plot towards the end of the cul-de-sac. It comprises a traditional two storey dwelling with a pitched, hipped roof and a disproportionately wide single storey addition to the side. There is a modest conservatory to the rear. The original dwelling is a pleasant but unremarkable house, but the side addition which appears wider than the original dwelling and extends to the side boundary with No 90 results in the overall impression of an unbalanced development. There is a wide gap to the side abutting No 96 which would be retained.

The proposed extensions would be significant but would blend seamlessly with the original house, maintaining the same roof pitch and shape over a first floor side extension and two storey rear extension. There would be a further single storey rear extension. The first floor side extension would not be as wide as the existing Appeal Decision Ref: 6004834 single storey extension and would be pulled away from the boundary with No 90, ending in a single storey addition with lean-to roof and a further gap to the boundary of about 1.5m.

The front elevation would be remodelled with a central glazed, gabled front projection and two further feature projections ending in small gables. The careful design would provide a pleasing, symmetrical appearance and would break up the front elevation such that the considerable width did not appear disproportionate. Overall, I find that the proposed extension and alterations when seen from the street would enhance the appearance of the original house and although wide, the gaps to both side boundaries would ensure that the dwelling did not appear cramped on its plot.

The rear two storey extension would be some 5m deep and the same width as the two storey front elevation. The single storey extension, which would be the full width of the building, would project a further 3m beyond this and finish with a flat roof. In terms of depth, despite being a significant enlargement I am satisfied that, when viewed from the sides, the seamless design of the two storey extension, coupled with the limited additional depth of the single storey element, would ensure that the dwelling did not appear disproportionately deep and that this aspect would be acceptable.

Nevertheless, unlike the front elevation, little attempt has been made to introduce interest or careful design into the rear elevation. The resulting appearance would be of a disproportionately wide building that appeared bland and unbalanced, with considerably more glazing at one end than the other and a poor relationship between ground and first floor fenestration. Overall, the scale, poor proportions and lack of architectural interest, consistency or coherent pattern would fail to reflect or be sympathetic to the simple but pleasing balance and proportions of the original two storey dwelling. It would therefore materially detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and fail to meet the high design quality expected by local and national planning policy. Whilst this elevation would not be readily visible in public views, it would be seen from adjoining gardens.

The Council, referring to its [name] and [name] (SPD), 2011 is concerned that the size of the proposed extension would mean it was not subservient to the host dwelling and would dominate its plot, so as to be out of keeping with the area. However, I noticed that a number of other dwellings nearby, which vary in scale and design, occupy most of the width of their plots. Moreover, whilst subservience can be essential to the success of an extension, in this case, where the existing dwelling as a whole is poorly proportioned, lacks cohesion and sits on a very large plot, there are opportunities for significant enlargements, subject to sensitive layout and design. I therefore find that while the SPD generally expects extensions to appear subordinate, in the context of the guidance as a whole, which recognises that they should be assessed on their own merits, the scale of the proposals would not be unacceptable in principle.

It is concluded on the first main issue that while the scale and appearance of the front and side extension and elevations would be acceptable, the rear elevation of the rear and side extension would, as a result of its scale, proportions and design, be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. In consequence it would conflict with Policies Q1 and Q2 of the Northampton Local Appeal Decision Ref: 6004834 Plan Part 2, 2011-2029 (LP), adopted 2023, and Policy S10 of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1) (CS), adopted 2014.

Taken together and amongst other things, these expect new development to achieve a high standard that promotes and contributes to well-designed places through high quality, beautiful and sustainable design. Small scale developments should respect their context and take the available opportunities to enhance their surroundings.

Turning to the living conditions of neighbours, I agree with the Council that, owing to the separation distance and orientation between the appeal dwelling and the bungalow at No 96 to the south, there would be no material harm to occupiers.

The house to the north, No 90, has no first floor habitable room windows in the main side elevation. There is a rear patio which lies adjacent to the rear of the dwelling and is likely to be used for sitting out. The proposed two storey side extension would project to the rear such that it would be clearly seen in views from this patio. Nevertheless, at first floor it would be set sufficiently away from the shared boundary so as not to result in a material loss of outlook or an overbearing effect on users of the patio. I am also satisfied that outlook from rear windows would not be materially affected.

Nevertheless, a first floor side bedroom window in the proposed first floor side extension would overlook the rear patio at No 90. The window, if clear glazed, would result in a material loss of privacy to occupiers at No 90. The appellant suggests that the window could be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7m above floor level. That would detract from the living conditions of future users of the room.

However, as noted by the appellant, the dwelling would be large. It would have a total of six bedrooms, most of which would have a pleasant outlook to the front or rear. The ground floor rooms would also have a good standard of outlook. Therefore, I agree that in the context of the dwelling as a whole, the lack of outlook from one bedroom would not harm the living conditions of future occupiers to a significant degree. Obscure glazing could, as suggested by the appellant, be required through a planning condition if the appeal was to be allowed.

It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed first floor side extension, subject to a suitable planning condition, would have no materially harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers at [address] with respect to outlook, privacy and overlooking. Neither would it materially harm the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal dwelling. In consequence, it would comply with [name] Q1 and Q2 which, taken together and amongst other things, expect new development to ensure privacy and a high standard of amenity for residents.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.