Rear single storey extension to provide living accommodation

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 23 March 2021 by Sarah Manchester BSc MSc PhD MIEnvSc an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/21/3266232 Red Tiles, 1 Stevens Street, Alderley Edge, Cheshire SK9 7NL • 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 Simon Metcalfe against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref 20/3792M, dated 1 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 26 October 2020. • The development proposed is Rear single storey extension to provide living accommodation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear single storey extension to provide living accommodation, at Red Tiles, 1 Stevens Street, Alderley Edge SK9 7NL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/3792M, dated 1 September 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, received 01/09/2020; Rear Extension Block Plan, Sep 2020; Single storey extension – plans and elevations, ref 7774-Planning Rev C, Feb 2020. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials that match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of Trafford Road (Alderley Edge) Conservation Area (the CA); and ii) The living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers, with particular regard to overbearing and light. Reasons Character and appearance 3. No 1 is at the end of a short terrace of 4 matching properties dating from the late 19th century. The group is constructed in buff brick with horizontal red brick courses to front and main side elevations. The ornamental frontages have 2 storey bays with Dutch gables, red brick pilasters and red ball finials. Sash Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/21/3266232 2 windows have red brick arch lintels. In contrast, rear elevations are finished plainly in brick, although with contrasting brick window arches. As built, the tall 2 storey rear outriggers were set in small walled yards separated from the long rear gardens by a shared access. Nos 2 and 3 have single storey extensions to the rear of the outriggers built over the path, while No 1 has not been extended and it retains its original walled yard and path. 4. The appeal site is in the Trafford Road CA, for which there is a map but no Conservation Area Appraisal. The Council’s evidence does not describe the CA nor its significance and no Conservation Officer comments have been provided. From the limited evidence before me and what I saw during my visit, the CA covers a largely residential area to the east of the town centre. There are short terraces and older cottages, but the area predominantly comprises substantial Victorian and Edwardian detached and semi-detached dwellings in large mature grounds with boundary walls and hedgerows. On this basis, the significance of the CA derives in part from the numerous traditional properties, their generous verdant grounds and harmonious boundary treatments. The appeal property terrace makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 5. The proposal would extend across the main rear elevation between the outrigger and the shared boundary wall between Nos 1 and 2. It would wrap around the rear of the outrigger to span the full width of the host property and it would be approximately 3m longer than the outrigger. It would be constructed in brick to match its host, with aluminium bi-fold doors opening onto the garden and a shallow pitch roof with Velux roof windows. 6. The side elevation of the proposal to the rear of the outrigger would be visible from Stevens Street behind the bowling green fence but it would not be visually obtrusive. Much of the proposal would be hidden from public views behind the dwelling and the outrigger. The appeal site is widely separated from the rears of properties on Clifton Street and Trafford Road by the long and well vegetated rear gardens. Consequently, the proposal would not be readily visible in its entirety, let alone conspicuous, from public or private land. The first floor elevations and roofs of the host property, which contribute most to views across the townscape, would not be affected by the proposal. From the limited private views afforded from locations to the rear, the single storey pitch roof part of the proposal to the rear of the outrigger would appear similar to the extensions to the rears of Nos 2 and 3. In this respect, it would not appear discordant or out of keeping with the rears of neighbouring properties. 7. The proposal would result in the loss of the original rear yard and part of its wall. While this would constitute a small loss of historic fabric, in the absence of a CA appraisal there is little substantive evidence to demonstrate the rears of unlisted buildings are a characteristic feature or that contribute to the significance of the CA. In any case, taking into account the small scale of the proposal, and in the context of the extended and altered rear of the terrace, the impact would be minor and localised so as to be neutral in the context of the CA as a whole. 8. Consequently, I do not find that the proposal would be detrimental to the character or appearance of the CA. This is because the proposal would not be conspicuous or visually obtrusive from the public domain and it would have limited prominence from the private domain. Unlike listed buildings, the significance of a CA is dependent upon how it is experienced. Consequently, proposals must be judged according to their effect on a CA as a whole and must Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/21/3266232 3 therefore have at least a moderate degree of prominence. Given the above, I find that the proposal would not be detrimental to the CA and thus it would preserve its significance. 9. Therefore, while the proposal would not retain the original rear of the property, it would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the property or the group. Furthermore, it would preserve the character and appearance of the Trafford Road (Alderley Edge) Conservation Area. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework and it would not conflict with the historic environment and protection of heritage asset aims of Saved Policy BE2 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan Adopted January 2004 (the MBLP) or Policies SE1 and SE7 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Adopted July 2017. Living conditions 10. The proposal would be built immediately adjacent to the brick boundary wall that separates the rear yards of Nos 1 and 2. The plans illustrate the height of the proposal along the boundary would be below the top of the neighbouring habitable room window in the main elevation. Consequently, by virtue of its height above the wall and its length, the proposal would be clearly visible from the neighbouring window. 11. The rear of the terrace is north facing such that the habitable room windows in the main elevation will not receive direct sunlight. Moreover, and as illustrated by the submitted aerial photographs, the rear windows and the rear yard of No 2 are already significantly overshadowed by the main roof and the tall outrigger of No 1. In this context, the closer approach of the proposal to the rear of No 2 would not result in significant additional overshadowing or loss of daylight or sunlight to the rear of the neighbouring property. 12. By virtue of the extension to the rear of its outrigger, the ground floor window in the rear of No 2 already looks out onto a long narrow pathway enclosed by the walls of the property and the shared boundary. The additional height of the proposal above the wall would marginally increase the sense enclosure to the rear of the neighbouring property. However, taking account of the existing tunnelling effect to the rear of No 2 and the significant sense of enclosure arising from the tall outriggers, the proposal would not contribute to significant cumulative adverse overbearing impacts to the habitable room window of No 2. 13. Therefore, the proposal would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers, with particular regard to an overbearing form of development or loss of light. It would not conflict with saved Policy DC3 of the MBLP which requires, among other things, that development should not significantly injure the amenities of neighbouring residential properties due to overbearing effect, loss of sunlight and daylight. Conditions 14. The Council has suggested planning conditions in the event that the appeal was allowed. I have assessed these against the tests set out in Paragraph 55 of the Framework. In addition to the standard condition limiting the lifespan of the planning permission, a condition securing materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. I have also specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/21/3266232 4 Conclusion 15. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not conflict with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions. Sarah Manchester INSPECTOR