Two storey rear extension, and front porch extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 16 March 2021 by Sarah Manchester an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/20/3265962 40 Hacking Street, Manchester M7 4YD • 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 Glickman against the decision of Manchester City Council. • The application Ref 127463/FH/2020, dated 14 July 2020, was refused by notice dated 22 October 2020. • The development proposed is two storey rear extension, and front porch extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of the property and the area; and ii) The living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is an extended mid terrace dwelling in a residential area. Properties are constructed in brick with 2 storey front bay features and pitched roofs. They are set back from the street with small front gardens separated from the footway by low walls. Access to the rear of No 40 is via a shared covered passageway beneath the first floor of No 38. 4. The proposed front porch would be between the side wall of the property and the ground floor bay window. It would be finished in brick and it would have a hipped roof. The Council considers that it would be an acceptable addition to the property and I see no reason to disagree. 5. The existing single storey extension to the rear of No 40 is a modest feature that extends across only part of the main elevation. The proposal, while similar in length, would be the full width of the dwelling and it would be the height of the 2 storey eaves and with a flat roof. Consequently, it would be a bulky and incongruous feature. Although it would not extend into the main roof, the large and boxy extension would be a dominant feature that would not be subservient and it would not make a positive contribution to the host property. 6. The rear of the terrace is not of particular architectural merit, but even so the proposal would fail to respond and it would not relate well to the surrounding Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/20/3265962 2 built environment. It would not be widely visible from the public domain, but it would be conspicuous when seen including from West Marwood Street. It would be an overly large modular addition that would not be integrated with the rear of the terrace and it would be markedly out of keeping with rear extensions elsewhere. It would be a prominent, visually obtrusive and discordant feature. 7. Therefore, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the townscape. It would conflict with Policies SP1 and DM1 of Manchester’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document Adopted July 2012 (the CS) and saved Policy DC1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester Adopted July 1995 (the UDP). These require, among other things, that development is well designed having regard to scale, form and massing; that it is not excessively large or bulky; and that it protects and enhances the built environment. Living conditions 8. By virtue of the additional height and width of the proposal, there would be a significant increase in the bulk of built development along the neighbouring boundaries to either side. 9. No 42 has a single storey dual pitch rear extension and the proposal would have a similar relationship to it as does the existing extension to No 40. Consequently, there would be no adverse impact on the ground floor habitable room windows in No 42. The proposal would allow for closer overlooking of the neighbour’s garden from first floor windows, but the rear gardens are already overlooked such that there would be no significant loss of privacy. 10. The blank first floor side elevation would be about 1m from the first floor habitable room window in the rear of No 42. By virtue of the orientation of the terrace, the proposal would not result in a loss of daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring window. The eaves of the proposal would be only slightly higher than the top of the neighbouring first floor window. However, while it might not be significantly overbearing, the conspicuous increase and close proximity of built development at first floor level would diminish the outlook from the neighbouring window, to the detriment of the occupiers of No 42. 11. The adjoining property on the other side, No 38, has not been extended. The proposal would not be immediately on the boundary and it would be separated from the rear of No 38 by the covered passageway. Irrespective, by virtue of its width, height and length, the proposal would result in a marked increase in the bulk of built development close to the rear and garden of No 38. 12. The closest first floor window in No 38 serves a bathroom, such that there would be no loss of outlook to first floor habitable rooms. However, notwithstanding the tall fence and gate between No 38 and the shared passageway, the blank 2 storey wall would be visually obtrusive, dominant and significantly overbearing when viewed from the closest ground floor habitable room window and the patio area to the rear of No 38. The proposal would be detrimental to the neighbouring occupiers. 13. The sun study drawings do not include compass bearings and it is not clear that they have taken account of the orientation of the terrace. On the basis that the proposal would be to the south west of No 38, it would be likely to result in some loss of daylight and sunlight to the rear of the neighbouring property Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/20/3265962 3 particularly later in the day. This would exacerbate the harm arising from the overbearing effect of the proposal. 14. While a large single storey extension could be constructed under permitted development rights, there is little before me to demonstrate that such a scheme would be implemented if the appeal should fail. Nevertheless I have considered whether the proposal would result in greater impacts than the theoretical fall back position. On the basis that the proposal would be roughly 5m in height, it would be considerably taller, larger and more imposing than a corresponding single storey extension. The permitted development rights do not provide a justification for the appeal scheme. 15. Therefore, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to overbearing and loss of outlook. It would conflict with Policies SP1 and DM1 of the CS and saved Policy DC1 of the UDP. These require, among other things, that development makes a positive contribution to the health and well being of residents, having regard to the effects on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Other Considerations 16. The appeal property is occupied by members of the Jewish community. Proximity to the local community is important as it enables members to live near relevant religious and cultural facilities and to support one another. In this regard, the appeal property is conveniently located within walking distance of relevant shops, schools and religious and community facilities. However, it does not provide adequate internal accommodation for the appellant’s growing family including his 5 children. While little substantive information has been provided, the evidence indicates that more suitable properties in this area are not affordable. The appellant is therefore seeking to extend the property to better meet the needs of his family. The creation of additional bedrooms would undoubtedly be a significant benefit in this regard. 17. Religion or belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, I am required to have regard to the Public Section Equality Duty (PSED) contained in the Act, including section 149 which relates to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relationships between persons sharing a relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share it. 18. Nevertheless, the appellant’s personal circumstances must be weighed against the public interests. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the property and the area. It would also be detrimental to the neighbouring residential occupiers. I acknowledge that the neighbours have not objected, but I am required to consider the impact of the proposal on future occupiers over the lifetime of the development. 19. The parties did engage with one another during the processing of the application and draft amended plans were submitted that reduced the width of the proposal but increased its length. However, the amended plans did not overcome the concerns of the Council and they were not determined. I also note that the appellant considers a flat roof to be a better design solution as it minimises the bulk and scale of the proposal, although there is little before me in relation to alternative solutions. Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/20/3265962 4 20. Dismissing the appeal would have a negative impact on the appellant because he would be unable to extend the dwelling as he proposes to accommodate his family. However, the proposal would be harmful in other ways. There is little compelling evidence that alternate schemes, including other forms of extension or internal alterations and extensions, have been comprehensively considered and discounted. Therefore, while the appeal scheme is clearly one way that the needs of the appellant’s family could be met, I cannot be certain that there are no other schemes that would deliver similar benefits without the harm that I have found. Taking all this into account, while I am sympathetic to the appellant’s personal circumstances, I find that neither they nor the protected characteristics under the PSED, carry sufficient weight to outweigh the harm. Conclusion 21. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan. Based on the evidence before me, the weight to be attached to the appellant’s personal circumstances does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers. 22. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Manchester INSPECTOR