Balcony to rear (resubmission of DC067162)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/D/18/3207371 4 Winnington Road, Marple, Stockport, SK6 6PD  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 Jackie Jackson against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref DC/068576 dated 5 February 2018 was refused by notice dated 18 June 2018.  The development proposed is a balcony to rear (resubmission of DC067162). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Station Road / Winnington Road Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site consists of a large semi-detached villa on the eastern side of Winnington Road within the Station Road / Winnington Road Conservation Area. It is set back from the street behind a garden that contains a variety of vegetation and planting, which along with other similar properties, gives the area a spacious and verdant character. The appeal and surrounding properties utilise red brick as the main facing material, with slate on the roof. They also exhibit a rich level of detailing to the eaves, a decorative horizontal string coursing to the walls, as well as sandstone dressing to the window lintels and sills. The use of traditional materials continues with the windows and doors which use mainly timber, and this, alongside the aforementioned architectural features, make a positive contribution to the special character of the Conservation Area. 4. The proposed development would involve the removal of a window and replacement with partially glazed doors that would provide access to the balcony. This would be formed in steel with an obscure glazed screen to one side. The Appellant has made reference to the proposal being a small-scale development, but it would extend across most of the width of the main Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/18/3207371 2 property. This, combined with the 2 metre projection and the steel supporting posts, would result in it appearing as an incongruous addition. Although concern has been raised in relation to the screen, given its glazed form, I do not consider that there would be any harmful impact arising from this element of the proposal. The low metal balustrade would also match certain existing features on the adjacent conservatory. Nevertheless, given the scale of the proposed balcony, it would detract from the symmetry between this pair of semi-detached villas that the appeal site forms one part of. It would appear as a conspicuous addition on the rear elevation of this pair of properties, which consist of symmetrical architectural features that help define the Conservation Area. 5. The balcony would be at the rear of the dwelling, where due to the change in levels, the Council have stated that this elevation was designed to take advantage of the aspect over the canal and the wider surrounding landscape. The Appellant has however stated, with reference to photos, that the position of the rear balcony would be barely visible from various vantage points. I was able to observe the site from some of these areas, and although the hedges and trees provide some screening, it was evident that the elevated location of the proposal on the rear elevation would mean that it would be visible. The Appellant has stated that the appeal site is not close to any listed building, specific landmark or key open spaces, nor has it itself been identified as being of any special note. The appeal site is nevertheless within a Conservation Area, where Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance. Given the above factors, the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the host property and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It would be contrary to Policy SIE-3 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policy HC1.3 of the Stockport Unitary Development Review, which require, amongst other matters, development to preserve or enhance the architectural or historic significance of heritage assets. It would also be contrary to the Supplementary Planning Document Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings, which sets out that development should preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), which seeks, good design and for great weight to be given to a designated heritage asset's conservation. 7. The Framework advises that where the harm would be less than substantial, as in this case, it must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I recognise that the sloping land provides an opportunity to provide a balcony. However, this matter would not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the Conservation Area. Other Matters 8. I have had regard to the Council considering the acceptability of some kind of balcony on the site and the amendments that have been made from a previously withdrawn application, through the removal of the glazed roof and Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/18/3207371 3 amended doors. I also accept that the Appellant is seeking to enhance the quality of her home. None of these factors would however outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the main issue. 9. The Appellant has made reference to other extensions including balconies and raised decked areas in the area. However, I have been provided with limited details of these developments and I am not aware of their full circumstances. In any event, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, including the proposal having been discussed with neighbours who raise no objections, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. F Rafiq INSPECTOR