Canopy to rear of property

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2019 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/19/3220811 23 Whalley Road, Manchester M16 8AD • 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 Majdi Aqil against the decision of Manchester City Council. • The application Ref 121696/FH/2018, dated 1 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2018. • The development is a ‘canopy to rear of property’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The canopy was present at the time of my visit. This has no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the case. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its setting within the Whalley Grange Conservation Area (CA), along with its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 21 and 25 Whalley Road with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal relates to a large semi-detached period house which sits within a row of similar properties. The appeal property has a single storey extension to the rear, which I understand benefits from planning permission. The development before me relates to a lean-to canopy, which has been added to the approved extension. 5. The approved extension spans the full width of the appeal dwelling and is quite deep. The canopy adds more than 3 metres to the depth of the approved extension and it is actually wider than the house, spanning almost the full width of the plot. When considered alongside the approved extension, the canopy appears as a completely disproportionate and ungainly addition and its timber frame and polycarbonate roof are inappropriate external finishing materials Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/19/3220811 2 which accentuate the harmful visual impact. Further, from what I could see, the canopy does not reflect the scale and positioning of other rear extensions within this row of dwellings and therefore it does not respond well to the established pattern of surrounding development. 6. For the above reasons, I find that the canopy amounts to an unsympathetic addition which harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling and it also harms the character and appearance of the CA. In these respects, it conflicts with saved policies DC1 and DC18 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (UDP) and policies DM1, SP1 and EN3 of the adopted Manchester Core Strategy (CS). 7. This harm is ‘less than substantial’ as directed by the Planning Practice Guidance, but I attach considerable importance and weight to the statutory duty imposed by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework explains 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. It goes on to say that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant has not suggested that the development offers any public benefits. Living conditions 9. When considered alongside the approved single storey rear extension, the canopy projects a significant distance from the main rear elevation of No. 21 Whalley Road, which sits close to the shared boundary. This property has a traditional two storey outrigger projecting into its rear garden which is set off the boundary with the appeal property. The combination of the outrigger at No. 21 and the approved extension at the appeal property already limits the outlook from the window serving the nearest ground floor room at the back of No. 21. Whilst the canopy is open sided, it has a solid roof and its scale, positioning and level of rearward projection worsens the outlook from the nearest ground floor room at the back of No. 21 and the effect is very oppressive. 10. The canopy also projects a significant distance from the single storey structure which projects from the main rear elevation of the attached dwelling, No. 25 Whalley Road, along the shared boundary. As a result, it appears as an unduly dominant structure when viewed from the rear of No. 25 and the effect is worsened to a degree by the fact that the rear garden of this property is noticeably shallower than that of the appeal property. On this basis, the canopy also unduly harms the outlook from the rear of No. 25 Whalley Road. 11. I therefore find that the canopy unacceptably harms the outlook for the occupiers of Nos. 21 and 25 Whalley Road. In such terms, it conflicts with saved policy DC1 of the UDP and policies SP1 and DM1 of the CS. Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/19/3220811 3 Other considerations 12. The appellant asserts he was not aware that planning permission was required for the canopy. Whilst I have no reason to doubt this, it has no bearing on my decision. Overall Conclusions 13. I conclude that the canopy harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA and it also harms the outlook for the occupiers of Nos. 21 and 25 Whalley Road, contrary to the development plan policies outlined above. No arguments have been advanced which outweigh the identified harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR