Raising ridge height and loft extension with rear dormer window
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 3 May 2022 by Hilary Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI
Decision by J Hunter BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 31st May 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/21/3288760
449 Wilbraham Road, Manchester, M21 0UZ
• 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 Mrs Noreen Aslam against the decision of Manchester City
Council.
• The application Ref 131042/FH/2021, dated 12 July 2021, was refused by notice dated
21 September 2021.
• The development proposed is raising ridge height and loft extension with rear dormer
window.
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.
Applications for costs
3. An application for costs was made by Mrs Noreen Aslam against Manchester
City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of
the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Reasons for the Recommendation
5. The host dwelling is a previously extended detached dwelling in a residential
area characterised by detached dwellings. Properties are generally set back
from the main road which gives a spacious and open character to the area with
a regular rhythm of dwellings. Although several of the properties have been
previously extended, they predominantly retain a hipped roof pattern and are
of a similar height. 449 Wilbraham Road is located almost opposite the junction
with Morville Road which allows longer range views of the property.
6. The appeal proposal would increase the bulk and massing of the roof, including
increasing the steepness of the pitches roof to all elevations. The resultant
roof, including the crown element would be a bulky and dominant feature which
would not reflect the design of the host property. It would be a prominent
Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/21/3288760
2
feature in the streetscene and would harmfully erode the spaciousness of the
locality.
7. The raising of the roof height and change to the roof pitch would unbalance the
property with the roof becoming a dominant, bulky feature which would not
reflect the character or appearance of the host property. As a consequence, the
contribution that the extended dwelling would make to the character and
appearance of the area would be eroded.
8. My attention has been drawn to examples of dwellings in the local area with a
crown roof. I am unconvinced that these developments are directly comparable
to the proposal before me, given that from my observations, they did not
appear to have altered the roof pitch or height. In addition, I am not aware of
the circumstances that led to their approval including the relevant development
plan policies in place at the time. In any event, I have determined this appeal
on its own merits based on the site-specific circumstances of the case.
9. I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the
host property and surrounding area and would conflict with policies SP1 and
DM1 of the Manchester Core Strategy and policies DC1.1 and DC1.2 of the
Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester which together, amongst
other things seeks to ensure that development has regard to the appearance in
the street scene and is not excessively bulky and out of character with
development in the area
Other Matters
10. I note the appellant’s concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the planning
application. However, this is a matter that would need to be taken up with the
Council in the first instance. In determining this appeal, I am only able to have
regard to the planning merits of the case.
Conclusion and Recommendation
11. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and
there are no other considerations, that outweigh this conflict. I therefore
recommend that the appeal is dismissed.
Hilary Senior
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s
report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.
J Hunter
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 3 May 2022 by Hilary Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI
Decision by J Hunter BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 31st May 2022
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/21/3288760
449 Wilbraham Road, Manchester, M21 0UZ
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mrs Noreen Aslam against the decision of Manchester City
Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for raising ridge height and
loft extension with rear dormer window.
Decision
1. The application for a costs award is refused.
Appeal Procedure
2. An Appeal Planning Officer has set out the recommendation below, to which the
Inspector has had regard before deciding the application.
Reasons
3. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded
against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process. Costs may be awarded to any party regardless of the outcome of the
appeal.
4. The PPG provides examples of unreasonable behaviour by local planning
authorities. This includes procedural matters, such as providing information
that is shown to be manifestly untrue or inaccurate, or deliberately concealing
relevant evidence. It also includes substantive matters, such as preventing or
delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its
accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material
considerations, or failure to provide evidence to substantiate the reasons for
refusal.
5. The application for costs relating to procedural matters centres on the
appellant’s concern that the Council acted unreasonably in reaching its decision
on the planning application by not communicating between the officers at the
Council and delays in communication with the agent. In addition, the appellants
raise substantive matters that the proposal does not offend the aims of the
policies referred to in the decision notice.
Costs Decision APP/B4215/D/21/3288760
2
6. The Council contends that they responded to the agents concerns and
suggested options to progress the application and that the lines of
communication were open.
7. It is not unreasonable for Officers to discuss proposals before coming to a
conclusion. Overall, I am not persuaded that the Council has acted
unreasonably by preventing development that should have been permitted.
8. On the substantive matter relating to policies the reason for refusal is clear and
the delegated report discusses the Councils view that the proposal conflicts
with the policies. Therefore, the Council did not prevent development that
should have been permitted. Whilst I appreciate that the appellant does not
agree with the outcome of the application, the Council did not behave
unreasonably
9. Consequently, the matter was one of a fundamental disagreement between the
parties which could have only been resolved by way of an appeal. As such
unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been
demonstrated. Therefore, an award of costs on this issue is not justified.
10. For this reason and taking into account all other matters raised, I recommend
that the application is refused.
Hilary Senior
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
11. I have considered all submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s
report and, on that basis, I agree that the costs award should be refused.
J Hunter
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.