Proposed extensions and alterations comprising 1) single storey extension to garage and conversion to living accommodation 2) single storey rear extension to lower ground floor 3) construction of oak framed car port 4) landscaping including patio, steps, enlargement of driveway/turning space and water feature

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 March 2026 by K Mee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002976 43 Dunham Road, Altrincham, Trafford WA14 4QG • 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 Mr and Mrs Jiang against the decision of Trafford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 116967/HHA/25. • The development proposed is described as “proposed extensions and alterations comprising 1) single storey extension to garage and conversion to living accommodation 2) single storey rear extension to lower ground floor 3) construction of oak framed car port 4) landscaping including patio, steps, enlargement of driveway/turning space and water feature”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. I have had due regard to this duty within my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Devisdale Conservation Area (the DCA). Reasons 4. The DCA is named after The Devisdale, a historic area of unenclosed flat land at the top of Bowdon Hill. It is characterised by large, individual houses in a variety of architectural styles. They are typically set in notable plots with magnificent gardens, mature trees, sweeping drives and coach houses. As such, the significance and special interest of the DCA is derived from its architectural quality of individual properties within a spacious and leafy setting. 5. The appeal property comprises a large, detached house, known as Deep Fields. It was constructed between 2014 and 2015, within the former garden of the neighbouring house of Oakleigh. The appeal site is situated between Oakleigh and Hurst Dale, which are recognised as positive contributor buildings. Although it is a more recent and modern addition, the appeal property has been designed with traditional features. It is sited in a spacious plot, where there is space afforded to the positive contributors of Oakleigh and Hurst Dale. As such, the existing dwelling makes a positive contribution to the DCA. Appeal Decision 6002976 2 6. The proposal would extend the existing attached garage to the rear and incorporate two lantern rooflights within the flat roof. The proposed extension would increase the bulk and massing near to the boundary with Hurst Dale with a substantially sized structure. This would further erode the already limited space around the building in this location. This would detract from the setting of the adjacent property at Hurst Dale, a non-designated heritage asset, and the spacious area afforded to both the host dwelling and Hurst Dale. 7. It is acknowledged that a significant area of usable outdoor amenity space would still be retained and that the scale of the extensions and area of hard landscaping to the rear have been reduced from a previously dismissed scheme. However, the introduction of a large car port, extended driveway, new steps, paths and patios would increase the areas of hardstanding from the current situation. Hard landscaping would extend over the proposed lower ground floor extension and to the side of the dwelling, bringing it closer to the adjacent property of Oakleigh. This would reduce the perceived separation distance with Oakleigh and the spacious setting, which is an established feature that is commonly found throughout the DCA. 8. My attention is now drawn to the rear infill extension proposed in this appeal which would sit across the width of the existing house. Given its position within the sunken courtyard area of Deep Fields, this extension would not harm the sense of spaciousness of the wider site. However, the central opening on the lower ground floor would be significantly widened and the ground floor central arch windows replaced with a new double doorway. These alterations would disrupt the uniformity and proportion of the rear elevation, detracting from its character and appearance. 9. Overall, the proposals, with the additional built development and increased areas of hardstanding, would reduce the spacious settlement pattern of the DCA. It would therefore result in a development that fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the DCA. The harm arising from the development would be less than substantial. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to conservation of heritage assets. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. 10. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the decision maker to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the scheme. The benefits would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset given that they would primarily be private, rather than public. 11. For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the DCA. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with Policies JP-P1 and JP-P2 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022-2039 (March 2024) and Policy R1 of the Trafford Local Plan: Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2012). Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and are acceptable for the historic environment. Appeal Decision 6002976 3 12. Furthermore, as a material consideration, it would also conflict with the objectives of The Devisdale Conservation Area Management Plan (2016). Specifically, this management plan notes that elements which result in significant loss of gardens in favour of hardstanding or parking, or side and rear extensions which would significantly reduce the intervening space between the existing building and the plot boundary, would be inappropriate. Other Matters 13. I note the appellant’s offer of removing the proposed roof lanterns over the garage and proposed side extension. However, an appeal should not be used to evolve a scheme, and I have therefore assessed the proposal on the basis of the submitted plans before me. 14. I also note that the proposal has been redesigned following feedback from a previously refused planning application and subsequently dismissed appeal. However, I have assessed the appeal on the plans before me. I also recognise that planning permission was granted by the Council in 2019 (LPA reference 96369/HHA/18) for the conversion of the attached garage, single storey extensions to the side and rear, timber framed car port and associated landscaping to the front and rear gardens. However, those proposals differ significantly from the appeal scheme in terms of their scale and design. Moreover, given that those proposals were not implemented, the permission has since lapsed. 15. I acknowledge that the appellants intend to use sustainably sourced materials wherever feasible in the construction of the proposed development. Also, that it would meet or exceed Building Regulation standards contributing positively to environmental goals. However, this does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal 16. The Council’s Tree Officer did not raise any concerns with regard to the proposal, subject to conditions being imposed. However, this is an absence of harm. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed. K Mee INSPECTOR