Erection of a two storey side and part single/part two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2018 by Christopher Thomas BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/D/18/3213291 96 Church Lane, Sale, M33 5QG  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 Ms Eleanor Smith against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 95201/HHA/18, dated 5 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 24 September 2018.  The development proposed is erection of a two storey side and part single/part two storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a two storey side and part single/part two storey rear extension at 96 Church Lane, Sale, M33 5QG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 95201/HHA/18, dated 5 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings:- Existing Site Plan (0160-AE004/A); Existing Building – Plans & Elevations (0160-AE002/B); Location Plan (0160-AE001/A); Proposed Plans & Elevations (0160-AP001/B) (Superseded); Proposed Site Plan (0160- AP002/B) (Superseded); Proposed Plans & Elevations (0160-SK004); Proposed Site Plan (0160-SK005). Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are 1) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area and hence whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ashton upon Mersey Conservation Area; 2) whether the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 98 Church Lane by reason of the effect on light and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/D/18/3213291 2 3. The appeal property is located on the southern edge of the conservation area within the identified Character Zone A referred to in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document SPD5.13a, Ashton upon Mersey Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP). Character Zone A is a strong group of Edwardian suburban villas, constructed between 1898 and 1910, which were built speculatively as detached or semi-detached dwellings. They display individual character whilst maintaining common features of the period. Two other Character Zones have been identified in the CAMP. Character Zone B is the historic core of the Conservation Area and includes St Martin’s Church, St Martin’s Community Hall and Ashton New Hall. Character Zone C encompasses the historic farmstead, associated with the adjacent church and New Hall. 4. The Council has applied the requirements of paragraph 2.8.2 of the CAMP to all the houses in character zone A to the east of Church Lane whereas the appellant considers that it is only relevant for the semi-detached houses. My reading of the paragraph suggests that the emphasis is on the semi-detached houses but nevertheless I acknowledge there is some room for ambiguity in its interpretation. Therefore, I have given some weight to the apparently more general requirements relating to all the properties, including the appellant’s house. These expect that extensions should remain subservient in size and style to the original house, should not be visible from Church Lane and would not be acceptable on the front or side elevations of properties. 5. I have given substantial weight to Policy 41 of the CAMP which in part states that ‘Extensions, to an existing building, should have regard to its established style by respecting the building’s established features, form, proportions and materials.’ Although the Council has referenced its Supplementary Planning Document 4: A Guide for Designing House Extensions and Alterations (SPD 4) in the first reason for refusal attention has not been drawn to any specific part of this document and I have therefore given it very little weight in reaching my decision on this issue. 6. There are public views of the side and rear of the appeal building from Church Lane and the adjacent public footpath because of its siting and the width of the plot. I consider this exposure to public view is a unique feature of its situation within the row of houses on the east side of Church Lane which in the main are semi-detached and have narrow gaps between the pairs of houses. For this reason extensions to the rear of the appeal property would not be capable of fulfilling the expectation set out in paragraph 2.8.2 of the CAMP of not being visible from Church Lane. Also, because of the comparatively substantial width of the gap between nos.96 and 94, in principle an extension to the south side of the appeal building would not be so critical in maintaining the space between dwellings. Accordingly, I consider that an exception to the general requirements in paragraph 2.8.2 would be appropriate in this case, provided the proposals met the other requirements set out in Policy 41. 7. I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a significant increase in the size of the host property. However, I consider that the scale of the proposed extensions would not be out of proportion with the size of the original building. Whilst the increased width of the existing outrigger would bring the side elevation out to nearly the same width as the main part of the building there would still be a slight step back which would retain a recognisable appearance of subservience between the two elements. In my judgement the rear extension would also not be disproportionate in scale to the original building, Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/D/18/3213291 3 and the combination of the single and two storey elements would break up the massing of the enlarged building. 8. I consider the design of the proposed extensions and the use of matching materials would be in harmony with the character and appearance of the original building. I draw the conclusion that its altered form would not be unsympathetic or disharmonious to the established style and architectural integrity of the original building. In my judgement the proposed alterations and additions to the host building would not be an unduly prominent feature within the street scene or when viewed from the public footpath. Neither would the proposal represent a visually intrusive and incongruous form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding dwellings. For all these reasons I consider the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area or fail to preserve the overall character and appearance of the conservation area. 9. I have concluded on this first main issue therefore that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the host building. Furthermore, I conclude that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved and the significance of the designated heritage asset of the conservation area would not suffer any demonstrable harm. The proposal would not conflict with policies L7 and R1 of the Trafford Core Strategy which respectively deal with Design and the Historic Environment. There would be no conflict with the requirements of the CAMP set out in policy 41 and paragraph 2.8.2. 10. In reaching this conclusion I have also had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2108) which expects that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Living conditions 11. In connection with the second main issue the Council has specifically identified the effect on light and outlook with respect to the main habitable room window sited within the rear elevation of the adjacent house at no.98 Church Lane which looks out on to the side yard of this property. 12. In order to protect neighbours’ amenity paragraph 3.4.2 of the Council’s SPD 4 advises that normally a single storey rear extension close to the boundary should not project more than 4m from the rear elevation of detached properties. For two storey rear extensions it indicates that they should not normally project more than 1.5m close to a shared boundary. 13. The Council acknowledges that the north east orientation of the specified window, which is presently flanked by the two storey side wall of the appeal building and faces onto the side yard, already leads to some effect on living conditions from a degree of overbearing harm and loss of daylighting for the occupiers. Because of these factors I consider that even though the combined projection of the proposed two and single storey extensions to the appeal building would be greater than normally expected as set out in SPD 4 there would be no significant increase in the overbearing effect experienced by the occupiers or significant additional loss of daylight received at this window. 14. I conclude therefore on this second main issue that the living conditions of the occupiers of no.98 would not be harmed by the proposal in respect of the effect Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/D/18/3213291 4 on light or outlook. Accordingly, the proposal would not conflict with policy L7 of the Trafford Core Strategy which deals with Design, nor would it be contrary to the relevant section in SPD 4. 15. In reaching my conclusion on this main issue I consider there is no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2108) which expects that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. 16. My overall conclusion therefore is that the appeal should be allowed. I consider that conditions should be imposed relating to the time scale for implementation and that for clarity the proposal should be carried out in accordance with the submitted and approved drawings. 17. I consider that the Council’s suggested condition requiring that prior approval of external materials to be used be sought is unnecessary. I have therefore imposed a condition requiring that the materials should match those used in the existing building. 18. I have taken into account all other matters raised but for the reasons I have given this appeal has been allowed. C Thomas INSPECTOR