Extension over garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 February 2021 by A Parkin BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 February 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/D/21/3266799 9 Hendham Drive, Altrincham WA14 4LY • 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 Joe Manning against the decision of Trafford Borough Council. • The application Ref 102511/HHA/20, dated 5 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 5 January 2021. • The development proposed is an extension over garage. 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 is located towards the end of a forked cul-de-sac, on a small estate containing traditional, 2-storey, detached dwellings of predominantly brick construction, albeit with some mock-Tudor elements. 4. The dwellings are set-back from the street with several having single-storey garages forward of their front elevations. Whilst there is some variety in terms of the design of the dwellings on the estate, there are also characteristic features, such as the half-hipped roofs on many of the garages. 5. The proposed development would be constructed above an existing integral garage with a half-hipped roof, to the front of the appeal dwelling. The proposal would extend the first floor of the dwelling so as to create a bedroom with a home office area, as well as various consequential alterations, including a changed floor layout and new fenestration. The proposed extension would follow the existing footprint of the garage and would be topped with a hipped roof, the ridgeline of which would be slightly lower than the ridge of the host dwelling. 6. The proposed extension would substantially increase the height and massing of the garage. Together with its position to the front of the appeal dwelling, largely forward of the principal front elevations of the next door dwellings and projecting beyond the end of the next door garage, this would make the proposal a dominant and obtrusive feature at this end of the cul-de-sac. Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/D/21/3266799 2 7. Furthermore, it would be readily visible along much of Hendham Drive, including from the junction with Thurlestone Road, and the design of the replacement hipped roof would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the estate. 8. Each of the three referenced properties on Hendham Drive containing 2-storey front extensions are different to the appeal property in some way, such as in terms of design, orientation, or position and visual context within the street. The extensions at Nos 1 and 13 are also smaller than the proposal, whilst the somewhat larger extension at No 3 aligns with that at No 1; all three extensions have half-hipped roofs. None of the existing extensions have a comparable visual impact to that of the proposed extension and in any event, each proposal should be judged on its individual merits, which is what I have done in this case. 9. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of matters regarding the estate, including the rectilinear shape formed by the garages at the appeal property and at No 19 on the opposite side of the road. These matters do not cause me to reach a different conclusion with regard to the harm that would be caused by the proposal, as set out above. 10. For these reasons the proposed development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy L7 (Design) of the Trafford Local Plan Core Strategy 2012, with guidance contained within Supplementary Planning Document 4 (Designing House Extensions and Alterations) 2012 and with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. Other Matters 11. Whilst there has been a substantial increase in homeworking since March 2020 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the longer-term implications for working patterns remains unknown. Even if a long-term need for a home office at the property had been demonstrated, a major part of the proposed extension would not be used for this purpose. The benefits of such a home office would not outweigh the harm I have identified. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Parkin INSPECTOR