Double storey extension to the side of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T4210/D/17/3188255 71 Milbourne Road, Bury BL9 6PU  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 Peter Lowe against the decision of Bury Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 61793/FUL, dated 1 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 September 2017.  The development proposed is a double storey extension to the side of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property forms a semi-detached house with a two storey front bay window located on the corner of Milbourne Road and Halsall Close in Bury. As a result of the variation in levels, the appeal property is set in a position slightly higher to the surrounding roads. The front and side boundaries are enclosed by low walls and planting and there are mature conifers to the rear boundary. 4. The area is characterised by mainly two storey dwellings with some bungalows. The dwellings are set back from the road with landscaped front garden areas bounded by low walls. This gives the area a relatively spacious and green appearance. Corner dwellings such as the appeal property are generally sited around 3 metres away from their side boundaries and are also in the main bounded by low walls and planting. 5. The appeal proposes the erection of a two storey side extension with a width of around 3.1 metres. It would have a sloping gable roof extending from the existing half hip and would extend the full depth of the house. 6. The Council’s Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) updated 2010, advises that two storey side extensions on corner plots should not normally occupy more than Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/17/3188255 2 half of the available width to the side area. They should also leave a minimum of 3 metres from the boundary with the public highway. 7. There appears to be some disagreement between the parties on the distance between the proposed extension and the side boundary. The Council states that the gap would be around 1.2 metres while the appellant suggests it would be in the region of 1.5 metres. In any event, it would be well below the 3 metre distance required by the SPD. 8. The SPD goes on to state that a lesser setback may be acceptable where the site area will be well screened or where the prevailing pattern of development in the locality is typified by relatively shallow frontages. I note from the original planning application form that it is proposed to remove the existing side boundary planting and create a path running along the side of the proposed extension. The lack of planting to the side boundary of the property would contrast with other dwellings in the immediate locality and impact negatively on the character and appearance of the area. 9. The property is in a prominent corner position at the crossroads of Milbourne Road, Greymont Road and Halsall Close. Its floor level, slightly higher than the surrounding roads, increases its prominence in the street scene. Together with the lack of planting to the side boundary, I consider that the appeal scheme would form a visually prominent development adversely affecting the street scene. 10. The appellant has brought my attention to a number of properties in the wider residential area that extend to their side boundaries. These include dwellings at the corner of Lowes Road and Talbot Grove and the corner of Hampton Grove and Halvard Avenue. I have been provided with no further details or history with regard to these properties. Following my site visit, it appears to me that some of these properties may have been originally designed to extend to the side boundaries, whilst others form extensions which may pre date current planning policy. In any event such examples are not representative of the overall character of the area in which the appeal site is located. 11. The appellant has also made reference to the new build properties on Greymont Road. These are built within a metre of the footway running along Hampton Grove. However the character of this area is one of generally narrower side and front boundaries, particularly along Sefton Road. This scheme is therefore not completely comparable to the case before me, which I have determined on its individual merits having regard to its context. 12. Bringing the above points together, I consider that the appeal scheme would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Saved Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties SPD. These policies aim to ensure that extensions are of a high design standard and sympathetic to the original building and surrounding area. Other matters 13. I have had regard to the lack of objection to the scheme from neighbouring Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/17/3188255 3 residents and that the proposal would cause no harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I also acknowledge that the proposal would be of an acceptable design and materials. However these matters do not outweigh my finding that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR