Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/18/3208191 20 Bentham Road, Culcheth and Glazebury, Warrington WA3 5EQ  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 Wayne McGregor against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/32429, dated 14 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 May 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of this particular part of the Bentham Road street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling which sits on the corner of Bentham Road and Howard Road. At this end of Bentham Road, the dwellings are largely consistent in terms of their overall scale and form, aside from differences such as porches and window detailing etc. Their broadly consistent appearance is a noticeable element of this particular part of the street scene and contributes positively to its overall character. 4. The proposed two storey side extension would have a lower ridge, would be recessed slightly from the main front elevation of the host dwelling and would be finished in appropriate external materials. However, it would project some 4.7 metres from the side of the host dwelling. It would be considerably wider than half the width of the original frontage of the host dwelling, which is the maximum recommended by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance titled ‘House Extensions‘ (SPG). 5. The appellant argues that the width of the two storey side extension would not be more than half the width of the original frontage of the house, given the presence of a single storey section which sits in a recessed position at its side. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3208191 2 The SPG does not provide specific guidance in this respect, but I consider that a reasonable interpretation should be taken. In this particular instance, the modest flat roofed structure sits some way back from the main front elevation of the house. Due to its small scale and recessed position, I consider that it cannot reasonably be described as part of the main body of the dwelling or part of the original frontage. On this basis, I share the Council’s position that this structure should not be taken as part of the width of the original frontage of the dwelling. 6. In light of the overall height, width and depth of the proposed two storey side extension, it would not appear subservient to the host dwelling and it would imbalance this pair of semi-detached houses. This harmful visual effect would be readily visible from the public domain, particularly given the prominent corner position of the appeal dwelling, and it would detract from the overall character and appearance of this part of the street scene. 7. For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the street scene. In such terms, it conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, policy QE6 of the adopted Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy and the SPG, which promote good design and seek to ensure that development harmonises with its surroundings. Other matters 8. The appellant has referred to me to other extensions within the local area. However, I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind these developments and in any event, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits and against the particular context within which it would sit. 9. The appellant points to the fact that the dwelling could be enlarged under the provisions of permitted development. This is not disputed, but a two storey extension could not be added to the dwelling in the manner proposed without planning permission being required. I therefore attach limited weight to this argument. 10. Finally, the appellant has expressed disappointment in the manner in which the application was determined by the Council, but this is not a matter for me to consider. Overall Conclusion 11. I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the street scene, contrary to the national and local policies outlined above. The arguments advanced by the appellant in favour of the proposal do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR