2-storey side extension to detached dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 December 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/D/18/3214640 3 Manston Drive, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle SK8 5DH  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 Oliver Rowe against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref DC/070545 was refused by notice dated 11 September 2018.  The development proposed is described as the erection of a 2-storey side extension to detached dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises the erection of a 2-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The Council dealt with the proposal on that basis and so shall I. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey detached house within a residential cul-de-sac along which properties are similar in age and general style although vary in size and general appearance partly due to various extensions and external alterations that have been carried out. Along Manston Drive in the vicinity of the site, adjacent buildings are generally separated by modest and irregular sized gaps. These gaps, together with the contrasting built form and varied orientation and front build lines, play an important role in differentiating one dwelling and its plot from another in the local street scene. 5. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings (SPD) notes the Council’s concern that where 2-storey side extensions are proposed to homes in areas of mainly detached or semi detached housing the character should not be lost through terracing extensions. Terracing occurs when adjacent buildings visually merge due to their close proximity. To avoid such an effect, the SPD notes that 2-storey side Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/18/3214640 2 extensions should be set back by at least 1 metre behind the front main wall or by 1 metre from the side boundary. The SPD also acknowledges that each situation should be assessed individually. 6. In this instance, the existing single storey garage at the side of No 3 establishes a substantial built form at ground floor level close to the shared boundary with the adjacent property, which is 5 Manston Drive. The new side addition would reduce the gap between these neighbouring properties by introducing additional built form particularly above ground floor level. It would do so close to the common boundary between Nos 3 and 5 and without any set back from the main front wall. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the guidelines set out in the SPD. 7. A gap of about 1.5 metres would separate the sidewalls of Nos 3 and 5 with the new built form in place. However, this gap would appear uncharacteristically narrow with 2-storey gable walls standing side by side in a street scene where adjacent houses are, for the most part, set back or orientated differently to each other, which also helps to differentiate them. In that context, the completed building and No 5 would appear to stand uncomfortably close together when seen from the road. With limited space between these adjacent houses, the finished building would appear cramped in terms of layout and in its relationship to No 5 even among the varied built form on Manston Drive. 8. Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (UDP) states that permission for an extension to a residential property in a predominantly residential area, as is the case here, will be granted provided, amongst other things, it does not prejudice the similar development of neighbouring properties. If a proposal to enlarge No 5 were to be progressed to mirror that of the appeal scheme, it would further close the gap between these properties and clearly lead to a terracing effect. That outcome would seriously harm the character and appearance of the street scene in which detached houses that are clearly spaced apart predominate. It is not certain that this would come to pass but the possibility that it could draws the new development into conflict with UDP Policy CDH1.8. 9. My attention has been drawn to extensions to other dwellings along Manston Drive that the appellant considers to be comparable with the proposal. While several other buildings include sizable side additions that are close to the side boundary of the plot, including those to which the appellant has referred, I saw none that were directly comparable to the appeal scheme in terms of scale, design and in their relationship with the neighbouring dwellings. Consequently, these cases do not lend support to the proposed development, which in any event has been assessed on its own merits. 10. The Council raises additional concern that the proposal, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent. However, the varied built form along Manston Drive indicates that the planning circumstances of those properties close to the site would not necessarily be the same or very similar to those of the proposal. Therefore, this consideration does not weigh against the appellant’s case. 11. Nevertheless, I conclude on the main issue that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Development Management Policy SIE-1 of the Core Strategy DPD and UDP Policy CDH1.8. These policies aim to ensure that development pays high regard to the built environment and does not adversely Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/18/3214640 3 affect the character of the street scene. It would also be at odds with the Council’s SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should add to the overall qualities of an area. 12. An interested party raises several additional objections to the proposal including its effect on living conditions and the potential difficulties with construction and maintenance of the extension. These are important matters and I have taken into account all of the evidence before me. However, given my findings on the main issue these are not matters on which my decision has turned. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR