Two storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 19 July 2021 by Hilary Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI Decision by R C Kirby BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/V4250/D/21/3274257 3, Meadow Beck, Leigh, WN7 3QZ • 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 Paul Trumble against the decision of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref A/21/90584/HH, dated 23 December 2020, was refused by notice dated 1 March 2021. • The development proposed is two storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The Government published on 20 July 2021 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Accordingly, and in light of the reference made to the previous iteration of the Framework within the submitted evidence, the parties have been provided with a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the publication. In this respect, I am mindful that neither the appellant nor the Council have made any further submissions regarding the revised Framework. However, in light of this re-consultation, I am satisfied that any references made to the revised Framework within this decision would not be unreasonable to the parties. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 3 Meadow Beck and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a modern two-storey detached dwelling, located within a predominantly residential area. The immediate area comprises a mix of property types set back from the highway giving an open character to the area. Whilst there is a mix of dwelling types there is a rhythm to the area created by the pairing of properties of the same design. In the case of the appeal property No 1 Meadow Beck is the same but mirrored design. Appeal Decision APP/V4250/D/21/3274257 2 6. The proposal would result in a double gabled frontage which would not reflect the character of the area as there are, as far as I could see on the site visit, no other examples of this in the locality. The introduction of the second gable would detract from the simple form of the dwelling and create a cluttered frontage which would harm the character of the area by reducing the amount of open frontage to the dwelling and unbalancing the appearance of the dwelling with its neighbour at No 1 and the rhythm of the streetscene. 7. Whilst the proposed materials would match the existing dwelling and assimilate into the street scene due to the recent construction of the dwellings, this would not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 8. In reaching my decision I have had full regard to the personal circumstances that have given rise to the need for the proposal. Whilst I am sympathetic to this need, I do not consider that it outweighs the harm I have identified. 9. Therefore, taking all the above into consideration, the proposed two storey front extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of 3 Meadow Beck and the surrounding area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) which seeks to ensure development, amongst other things, respects and acknowledges the character and identity of its locality in terms of the siting, size, scale and details used. It would also be contrary to the requirements of the House Extensions Design Guide, Supplementary Planning Document, June 2019 which recognises that streets are often characterised by a distinctive building rhythm and that front extensions would rarely be visually acceptable and paragraph 130 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are of high quality and are sympathetic to local character. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed. Hilary Senior APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and agree that the appeal should be dismissed. R C Kirby INSPECTOR