Rear extension including loft extension and inset balcony, new two storey porch, and dormer windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2026 By S Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004745 Shenandoah, 12 School Lane, Warmingham, CW11 3QL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr. and Mrs. Sean Biddle against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application reference is 25/3546/HOUS. • The development proposed is a rear extension including loft extension and inset balcony, new two storey porch, and dormer windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision- making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area from the point of view of determining this appeal. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a bungalow falling within a street which includes several dwellings positioned in an essentially linear form. The area is designated as countryside. While many of the properties in the street are bungalows, there are nonetheless other house types and designs. Brick is the predominant building material, although the use of some complementary render is noticeable on some of the properties. 5. The dwellings are positioned on one side of the lane and most are behind landscaped front amenity spaces which provide a distinctive sense of spaciousness to the area. The other side of the lane gives way to open fields, giving the area a semi-rural character. On my site visit, I was able to note that most of the dwellings have unbroken, front roof slopes and that there is an overall simplicity to the Appeal Decision: 6004745 2 elevations facing the lane. Collectively, I find that the above attributes add positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the area. 6. Policy RUR11 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations Development Policies Document 2022 (SADPD) states that, in areas of countryside, proposals will ‘usually’ be disproportionate where they increase the size of the original building by more than 50%. There is no dispute between the main parties that, accounting for the removal of the existing rear conservatory, the proposal would amount to about a 55% increase in the size of the original dwelling in terms of floorspace. 7. While the proposal does conflict with the disproportionate addition threshold stipulated in policy RUR11, the policy does state that this is a ‘usual’ requirement. To my mind, this indicates that there may be a degree of flexibility depending upon the circumstances of the case. 8. In this case, the appeal dwelling is located next to a larger property, and it would also continue to retain a degree of spaciousness around it. Moreover, prior approval has been given previously for an 8-metre-long rear extension, and for a side extension, new porch and rear dormer in respect of a lawful development certificate1. In this context, I find that there is likely to be a greater than theoretical prospect of such development being implemented if this appeal were to be dismissed. This constitutes a fallback position to which I afford significant weight as a material planning consideration in decision making terms. Consequently, and for these reasons, I do not find that the 55% increase in the size of the original dwelling constitutes a reason on its own to justify refusal of planning permission. 9. Notwithstanding the above, and the fact that the proposed rear extension would be acceptable in both design and scale terms, I nonetheless find that the proposed front porch would appear as a bulky and out of keeping addition when experienced in the street-scene. It would be of a height and scale which dominates the host property and therefore does not appear subordinate in scale. It would depart unacceptably from the simplicity and uniformity of most of the front elevations to the properties in the lane. 10. In addition to the above, when the proposed porch is considered alongside the proposed front dormers, which are not a prevalent characteristic in this part of School Lane, I consider that material harm would be caused to the otherwise cohesive and consistent design that is appreciated amongst the unbroken roof slopes of most of the properties in School Lane. 11. Therefore, while I do not find, in this case, that the size conflicts with policy RUR11 of the SADDP, or with the similar policy PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 (LPS) sufficiently to justify refusal of planning permission, I nonetheless conclude that, when the proposal is considered as a whole, it would constitute poor design and would fail to assimilate well into the wider street-scene. In this regard, the proposal would not accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policies SD1, SD2 and SE1 of the LPS, policy HOU11 of the SADDP and chapter 12 of the Framework. 1 Application reference numbers 25/2289/PRIOR-6 and 25/2386/CLPUD. Appeal Decision: 6004745 3 Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that, when the proposed development is considered together, it would not accord with the development plan for the area taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. S. Hartley INSPECTOR