First floor extension to side and rear including raised ridge

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/D/18/3201341 4 Woodbourne Road, Sale M33 3SY  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 Bill Brown against the decision of Trafford Borough Council.  The application Ref 92265/HHA/17, dated 18 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 February 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor extension to side and rear including raised ridge. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side and rear extension including raising the ridge, along with other external alterations at 4 Woodbourne Road, Sale, M33 3SY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 92265/HHA/17, dated 18 August 2017, and the plans with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1719-01/A; 1719-02 and 1719-03. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those on the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018. However, the parties made limited reference to the Framework in their submissions and I do not consider that the changes or revisions significantly affect the determination of this appeal. Consequently, it was not necessary to revert to the parties for further comment. 3. The description of the development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, in my decision, I have taken the description of the development from the Council’s decision notice and appeal form, since this accurately describes the proposal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/D/18/3201341 2 Reasons 5. The appeal dwelling is constructed of brick/render with a tiled roof. The properties located on Woodbourne Road comprise of a mixture of dwelling types including semi-detached houses and bungalows, detached houses and bungalows. Additionally, the road provides access to Brooklands Primary School, which the host dwelling faces. 6. The proposal is for a first floor side extension over the existing garage and utility room, with no increase in the properties footprint. The proposal would be set back from the front elevation at ground floor, and would not project any further forward than the existing first floor front elevation. 7. I note that no objections have been raised by the Council in relation to the increase in ridge height of the dwelling, the effect of the scheme on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or highway safety, and I too consider the proposal not to be harmful in these respects. The main concern from the Council is the lack of a 1 metre gap between the side elevation of the proposed extension and its side boundary. 8. The Supplementary Planning Document 4: A Guide for Designing House Extensions and Alterations (February 2012) (SPD) advises that first floor additions will normally be acceptable where a gap of a minimum 1 metre is retained to the side boundary, to retain the impression of space to the side of the dwelling. Both parties acknowledge that the existing side space at the appeal dwelling and the boundary with 2 Woodbourne Road is less than 1 metre, which is contrary to the advice contained within the SPD. 9. However, the scheme would be modest in scale, proportionate and complementary to the original dwelling. The scheme would be set back from the front elevation of No 2 to avoid any terracing effect. Additionally, the existing space between No 2 and No 4, along with the introduction of a hipped roof on the scheme would ensure that sufficient space around the extended dwelling is maintained, to respect the prevailing pattern and character of the surrounding area in accordance with the objectives of the SPD. 10. Whilst I accept that the proposal would not be set away from the side boundary by 1 metre, and will therefore not be fully compliant with the guidance contained in the SPD, the scheme would be a well-designed, subordinate extension that would not result in any significant harmful effects. Despite technical breaches of the SPD, the site specific circumstances of the host dwelling means that the scheme would still accord with the overall design aims of the SPD 11. For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and the surrounding area, and would comply with Policy L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: Core Strategy 2012, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure developments take opportunities to improve and enhance the character and quality of an area. It also accords with the SPD, which, amongst other things, seeks to protect the character and appearance of individual properties and residential areas. Additionally, the proposal complies with paragraph 124 of the Framework, which requires the creation of high quality buildings and places, amongst other things. Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/D/18/3201341 3 Conditions 12. I attach a condition specifying the approved plans, for certainty. A condition to ensure that the facing materials would match those present on the existing property has been included in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Other Matters 13. The appellant has brought recent appeal decisions to my attention. I consider that whilst the proposal is similar to the appeal schemes quoted, the specific site circumstances between the properties are different. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own particular merits and concluded that it would not cause harm for the reasons set out above. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Wayne Johnson INPSPECTOR