Demolition of an existing conservatory to the rear and the construction of a part single-storey and part two-storey extension to the front side and rear of the house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 June 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/18/3200664 9 Birkdale Road, Penketh, Warrington, WA5 2DJ  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 Kevin Jones against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/31791, dated 11 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 February 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of an existing conservatory to the rear and the construction of a part single-storey and part two-storey extension to the front side and rear of the house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The submitted sketches do not show the proposed front extension. Because of this and the use of a 3D approach to the drawings, it is not possible to identify the exact height of the proposed front/side/rear extension to roof ridge levels. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the area around Birkdale Road. Reasons 4. No 9 is a semi-detached house, situated on a corner plot at the junction of Birkdale Road and Hesketh Close. It has an existing two-storey side extension and an existing single-storey rear extension, with a conservatory to the side, close to the boundary with No 11. The side extension is set back a small amount from the main front elevation at ground-floor level and by somewhat over 1 metre at first-floor level. There is a gap of around 2 metres between the side extension and the side boundary with Hesketh Close. 5. The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing conservatory and the construction of a “wrap-around” two storey side and rear extension, with a small single-storey rear extension in approximately the same location as the conservatory. The two-storey side extension would entail the first-floor being extended forward at first-floor level to the existing front elevation of the current ground-floor element. The first floor would also project further to the rear, out as far as the existing ground-floor rear elevation, and it would wrap-around the rear elevation at first-floor level also. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3200664 2 6. It is not possible from the information before me to ascertain the precise effect of the alterations on the height of the roof ridge of the gable end of the side extension, not is it possible to determine the height to the ridge of the proposed hipped roof above the rear of the extension, although it would appear that it would be at or only slightly below that of the main ridge. 7. Policy QE7 of the Council’s Local Plan Core Strategy (LP) notes that the Council will look positively upon proposals that are designed to enhance the character, appearance and function of the street scene, local area and wider townscape, and to harmonise with the scale and proportions of existing buildings. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions (SPG) indicates that the Council will normally expect all extensions on corner plots to meet certain specified criteria including that the width of the extension should not be more than half the width of the garden/plot between the property and adjacent highway. 8. The Council contends that the proposed development would appear as a large, bulky extension that would fail to appear subservient to the host property and that it would therefore fail to respect the character of the original host dwelling. Moreover, this is exacerbated by the siting of the property on a corner position. The appellant contends that there is already a variety of house extensions to properties in the vicinity, including a recent side/rear extension at No 89 Warrington Road. 9. In this case, I find that the forward projection of the existing side extension would be likely to require the raising of the ridge of the roof to that of the existing main ridge. Moreover, the rear extension would project well beyond the existing main rear elevation and across a major part of the width of the house. This would have a hipped roof, but I have no details as to the projected height of that roof, and the extent of the rear projection would seem to require a ridge level at or just below that of the existing main ridge and/or a pitch to the roof that would not match that of the other elements of the roof. In any case, the full extension would appear as a large bulky feature in a prominent corner plot location, and the side extension, which is already close to the plot boundary, would continue the development further into the site, also close to that boundary. 10. I note the existence of a relatively new side/rear extension at No 89 Warrington Road, but in that case, the extension retains a much larger gap to the side of the property, while the rear portion of the extension is much narrower and set down significantly from the main roof ridge level. The proposal at the appeal property would appear much more cramped and bulky on its site, detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 11. I conclude on this issue, therefore, that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area around Birkdale Road, and that it would conflict with Policy QE7 of the LP and with guidance on side extensions contained within the Council’s SPG. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR