Appeal 6006534

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of porch and garage with extension (single storey) replacing removed structures, with the extension to be set one course from the existing host property, its roof to be 500mm lower and the extension brick and roof to be matched to the host property plus increased parking including improved drive surface at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01437/HFUL, 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 following approved plans: HDR-DR-AX-000001-P02; HDR-DR-AX- 000002-P01; HDR-DR-AX-000003-P02; HDR-DR-AX-000007-P01; [name]-000008-P02; HDR-DR-AX-000009-P02 and HDR-DR-AX-000010-P01.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building except as otherwise specified on the application form.

The description of proposed development set out above is taken from the application form, with minor editorial adjustments to make it read more accurately and leaving out one reference to a matter of opinion.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the bungalow and the local area; and (ii) the safety of public highway users.

[site address] is a low, single storey, detached bungalow, set within a residential area of similar bungalows and 2 storey houses. Like the other bungalows nearby, it has a gable front and a deep plan. Atypically, however, it sits on a plot with a wide frontage. The space to the side is infilled by a flat roofed garage, joined to the house by a linking extension. The Council states that it has no record of a planning permission for that side link. The main element of the proposal is to replace the garage and extension with a pitched roof side extension.

The proposed extension would be set back slightly from the front of the bungalow and set well down from the main roof level, so that it would be a distinct and visually subordinate part of the overall building. It would be a better quality structure than the existing garage, improving the appearance of the bungalow. Although it would stretch the full width of the plot, it would not notably close down the wide gap between Nos 29 and 27, which is in part provided by a private way. With its very low height it would have almost no effect on the openness of this part of the street scene. The size of the resulting building would remain proportionate to this larger than average plot.

I conclude that the proposal represents good quality design which would enhance the character and appearance of the bungalow and the local area. It accords with policy 8(d) of the [name] 2011-2031 (JCS), policies EN2 and EN11 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 – 2011-2031, Policy EN1 of the Rushden Neighbourhood Plan, the Council’s Householder’s Guide to Extension Design Supplementary Planning Document, paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guide, which taken together aim to secure high quality design that respects and complements local character.

[address], in the area around No 29, is a wide residential street with no on-street parking restrictions. The bungalow has a single width drive leading to 2 parking spaces and the garage. The proposal includes the enlargement of the parking area to provide 3 spaces, though the layout would be cramped and would probably still only be workable for 2 cars. The Council’s concerns in regard to highway safety are that the applicant has failed to demonstrate: (i) the provision of 3 parking spaces; and (ii) adequate visibility splays to the adjacent public highway footway.

The proposal would increase the number of bedrooms from 2 to 3. This could indicate an increased need for parking spaces. Notably, however, the [name] (NPS) recommends the same level of parking for 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings (2 spaces plus 1 visitor space per dwelling across the development). The NPS also says that garages are often too small to be convenient for day to day parking so are not included as designated parking spaces in developments.

In this case, the garage is quite small and should not be counted as an existing parking space. There are therefore 2 viable parking spaces here and the loss of the garage would have no real effect on parking provision. The proposal would provide at least 2 spaces. As the level of parking provision would not change, no new shortfall would be created. Any overflow car parking could be safely accommodated on-street in any case.

At present, low fences to either side of the access drive could block drivers’ views of small pedestrians on the footway. The proposal could marginally increase the amount of traffic in and out of the site, but I do not consider that there would be a material intensification, bearing in mind that the NPS parking standard would stay the same. As the amount of traffic visiting the site would remain much the same and no change is proposed to the site access, I find no reason to withhold permission due to concerns about the existing pedestrian visibility splays. I note that the access arrangements for No 29 are similar to others in the local area.

I conclude that the proposal would not prejudice the safety of public highway users. It accords in this respect with JCS policy 8(b), which aims to make safe streets - in part by ensuring satisfactory access and provision for parking in accordance with local standards.

I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. A condition is also necessary to require the use of matching materials as proposed, to protect local character. The Council has not suggested any other conditions, including nothing in relation to the surfacing of the drive. I likewise do not see the need for any, leaving the minor matter of surfacing to the householder.

I find that the proposal accords with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.