Double storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 December 2017 by Beverley Wilders BA (Hons) PgDurp MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/17/3185083 3 Greenstead Avenue, Manchester M8 0WR  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Babar Mahmood against the decision of Manchester City Council.  The application Ref 116048/FH/2017, dated 12 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 August 2017.  The development proposed is double storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a two storey semi-detached property located in a prominent corner position at the junction of Greenstead Avenue and Parslow Avenue. The host building has a front and side garden bounded by a low level brick wall allowing open views of the site and is set back from the adjacent roads. The immediate surrounding area is characterised by properties of a similar scale, design and appearance. 4. The proposal is for a large two storey side and rear extension which would wrap around the host building. The extension would be flush with the front elevation of the host building with the exception of a forward projecting bay at ground floor, would project beyond the main part of the rear elevation and the bulk of the roof of the extension would match the eaves and ridge height of the host building. Consequently the extension would not be subservient. In addition the distance between the side elevation of the host building and the side boundary with Parslow Avenue would be significantly reduced by the proposal and this together with the scale, bulk and design of the extension and the open character of the appeal site means that the proposal would create an over dominant and visually intrusive feature in this prominent corner position. At my site visit I noted that there is generally an absence of two storey side extensions in the locality and where such extensions have been constructed they are in less prominent positions and subservient to the host building. Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/17/3185083 2 5. In reaching my decision I note that the application was submitted following the withdrawal of a previous application for a similar proposal and following advice received from the Council. Whilst I note that the appellant has amended the proposal in an attempt to overcome the Council’s concerns and that the Council has stated a willingness to accept a single storey side extension in a similar position to the proposal, for the reasons stated I consider the proposal to be harmful. The fact that a single storey side extension may be acceptable does not mean that a much larger two storey extension in a similar position would also be acceptable. In addition the lack of objections received from neighbours does not justify the proposal. 6. Taking the above matters into consideration I conclude that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It is therefore contrary to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Manchester Core Strategy 2012 to 2027, Policy DC1 of the Manchester Plan and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies seek, amongst other things, development including residential extensions to be appropriate in terms of siting, scale, form and massing and to have regard to the character of the surrounding area. Conclusion 7. For the above reasons and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Beverley Wilders INSPECTOR