Two storey side extension above existing garage, single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 February 2019 by William Cooper BA (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/18/3216831 24 Hazelborough Close, Birchwood, Warrington WA3 6UL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Dave Pope against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref: 2018/32986, dated 6 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 September 2018. • The development proposed is two storey side extension above existing garage, single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a two-storey detached house on a late twentieth century housing estate. The proposal is for an extension above the garage on one side of the house and a single-storey ‘wraparound’ extension to the rear and other side of the house. 4. The appeal site is on a bend around half way along Hazelborough Close and at the entrance to a small cul-de-sac. These combined factors make it a prominent location. 5. As seen on my site visit, the prevailing character of Hazelborough Close and surrounding streets is of houses set on curving streets, separated from the pavement by landscaped garden spaces. These spaces provide visual relief from built-up elements and contribute to the distinctive open and verdant character of the streetscene. Whilst there is some variety of house type, size and orientation, the area nonetheless has a recognisable character, as described above. 6. The alignment of the existing outer gable end of the host dwelling with the front building line of Nos.20 and 22 Hazelborough Close allows for a separation strip from the pavement. The proposed wraparound extension would step forward of the front elevations of Nos.20 and 22 and intrude into this strip. This would result in the proposal jutting out awkwardly close to the pavement edge Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3216831 2 and looking cramped. This would be detrimental to the openness of the streetscene. The proposal’s prominent location on the bend of the street would exacerbate this discordance. As such, the proposed development would conflict with the character and distinctiveness elements of Policy QE7 of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (CS). 7. I accept the appellant’s point that the estate is not set out in a grid pattern. However, the appeal site is located on the corner of a bend, within a broadly right-angled cluster of housing from Nos.20 to 26 Hazelborough Close. As such, I have had regard to Warrington House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 (2003) (SPG2), including its corner plots criteria. Whilst I accept that the proposal accords with criteria 3 and 5, it conflicts with criteria 1 and 4 in terms of projecting beyond neighbouring front elevations and into garden space, as described above. In respect of criterion 2, the greater depth of the proposed wraparound side extension, compared to the host dwelling, would make the former more prominent than the latter, viewed close up from the adjacent pavement. 8. It is suggested that the curve of the street takes the eye away from the proposed side extension. However, I consider that the prominence of its setting on the bend would highlight the effect of the proposal, as described above. I also note the appellant’s view that the proposed development is to be ‘read in context’ with neighbouring dwelling No.26 rather than Nos.20 and 22. However, the effect of the proposal in relation to Nos.20 and 22 is relevant, given its prominence. 9. I have had regard to the other extensions in the area, referred to by the appellant. However, I have not been provided with the details of these cases. Moreover, the proposed development has a different setting and its own context, and I have assessed it on its own merits. 10. To conclude, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policy QE7 of the CS and the associated guidance in SPG2, which together seek to ensure that development complements local character. Other Matters 11. It is recognised that the proposal would create additional living space for the host property. However this consideration does not outweigh the harm identified. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. William Cooper INSPECTOR