First floor side extension and a garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2018 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/17/3192369 8 School Road, Handforth SK9 3EZ  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 Astrid Herz against the decision of Cheshire East Council.  The application Ref 17/3895M, dated 28 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor side extension and a garage conversion. 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 area. Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises of a semi-detached house, which is set a relatively short distance back from the front boundary of the site. It contains a single storey side extension which projects near up to the boundary with No 6 School Road. The detached house at No 6 is set back approximately 1.5m back from this boundary. School Road comprises of a mix of housing types and, whilst a number of properties have been extended to the side, the spacing in between the properties appreciably contributes to the pleasant character and appearance of the area. 4. The proposal would extend over the garage at first floor level up to the boundary with No 6 so that only a small gap would be left. As it would not be set off the boundary with No 6 to any significant degree, the spacing up to the boundary would be lost. This would be noticeable in the streetscene and detract from the prevailing character of residential properties on School Road. 5. With the proposal’s overall size and proportions, the slight setting back from the front elevation of the existing house would not significantly alter that the proposal would not appear subservient as it would not allow for the original proportions of the house to remain the obvious feature. This harm would also not be overcome by use of the matching materials to the existing house or that the proposal would rise to the same roof ridge height because neither of these matters would address the loss of spacing. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/17/3192369 2 6. As regards terracing, as the proposal would extend up to the boundary at first floor level and if No 6 proposed a 2 storey side extension up to the boundary, this would result in 3 properties that would appear as joined from the streetscene. It would also result in the loss of the character of the appeal property as a semi-detached house. Although the appellant considers that No 6 cannot extend to the side due to the size of the space, based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded this can be relied on, if the current, or future, occupiers did decide to increase the size of their accommodation and extend up to the boundary. 7. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of examples of side extensions in the area. Whilst I accept that some of these have resulted in the loss of spacing between properties, spacing has been maintained in others because of how the extensions have been sited to maintain a significant gap up to the boundary. This character is also maintained by the existing extension on the appeal property because of its single storey proportions, despite that it projects nearly up to the boundary. I consider that the prevailing character is largely intact, and it has not been substantially changed by the side extensions that are evident. As such, it is proper to maintain this character as it does appreciably contribute to the area. 8. I conclude the proposal would be unacceptable with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not comply with Policy SE1 of the Cheshire East Council, Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 (2017) which state that proposals should make a positive contribution to their surroundings, including ensuring design solutions achieve a sense of place by protecting and enhancing the quality, distinctiveness and character of settlements. 9. It would also not comply with ‘Saved’ Policy DC43 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (2004) (LP) which states that side extensions should not normally encroach within 1m of the site boundary, to prevent terracing. The policy applies this distance in order to protect character, which is also an intention of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), and thus it would also not comply with the Framework in this regard. I also find ‘Saved’ Policy DC43 is not overly prescriptive with regard to paragraph 59 of the Framework, as there is some flexibility in its approach with the wording of the policy. Therefore, I consider the policy is consistent with the Framework and, consequently, I attach significant weight to it. 10. The proposal would also not comply with the guidelines in ‘Saved’ Policy DC38 of the LP which states that each dwelling should be set back at least 1m from the site boundary. However, as this policy concerns the effects on living conditions, rather than character and appearance, I attach limited weight to it. This does not though address, or outweigh, the harm I have identified. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed. Darren Hendley INSPECTOR