For a first floor extension and a front porch

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: 01 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004700 1, Plant Lane, Moston, Cheshire East, CW11 3PG • 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 Ryan Coram against the decision of Cheshire East Council.. • The application reference is 25/3617/HOUS. • The development proposed is for a first floor extension and a front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension and a front porch at 1, Plant Lane, Moston, Cheshire East CW11 3PG in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/3617/HOUS, subject to the following conditions:- (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: P-LP-001(Block plan and location plans);PA-001 (proposed floor plans);PA-002(proposed elevations 1) and PA-003(proposed elevations 2). Preliminary Matters 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. 3. The proposed development is described both in the application forms and in the decision notice as a first floor extension, whereas the submitted plans also include a replacement front porch, which is also included in the description of the proposal in the Council’s officer report. For the avoidance of doubt, I have included it in the description in the banner heading and in the decision above. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004700 2 Main Issues 4. The main issues are (i) whether the proposed development would be disproportionate in terms of planning policy and (ii) its effect upon the character and appearance of the dwelling. Reasons Disproportionateness 5. The appeal relates to a detached dwelling with two pitched dormers, one to either side of a centrally located porch with a double pitched roof. It is located within an area defined by the Council as open countryside. 6. The house has been extended numerous times so that it currently includes a flat roofed rear extension with a length of approximately 3.5 metres and an internal width of some 4.1 metres. The appeal proposal is to extend above it to provide additional space and with an extension to the existing pitched roof over it. External materials for the walls and roof would match those of the existing house around it. 7. The local planning authority (LPA) makes no objection to the proposed replacement porch and I have no reason to disagree. 8. The LPA considers that the previous extensions to the original dwelling have increased its size by 62%, that the proposed addition would mean that the overall percentage would increase to approximately 75%, and that this would represent a disproportionate addition, contrary to policy RUR11 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations Development Policies Document 2022 (SADPD) which states that:- i. Extensions and alterations to existing buildings (including the construction of ancillary outbuildings or structures in their curtilages) in the open countryside and Green Belt will only be permitted where the proposed development would: i. not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; ii. respect the character of the existing building, particularly where it is of traditional construction or appearance; and iii. not unduly harm the rural character of the countryside by virtue of prominence, excessive scale, bulk or visual intrusion. ii. When considering whether a proposal represents disproportionate additions, matters including height, bulk, form, siting and design will be taken into account, with particular attention given to increases in the overall building height. iii. In addition to Criterion 2 above, proposals will usually be considered to represent disproportionate additions where they increase the size of the original building by more than 30% in the Green Belt or 50% in the open countryside. 9. However, the policy permits exceptions to the size threshold of 50% including where the proposed development ‘provides additional floorspace with no significant alterations to the building’s envelope or external appearance (such as basement extensions)’. 10. The proposed development (not forgetting the replacement porch) represents a first floor addition to an existing single storey flat roofed extension. There would be no addition to its footprint and while there would be some increase to the building’s Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004700 3 envelope, this and the resultant change to its external appearance, would not be unacceptably significant, especially where the first-floor extension would not be especially visible, if at all, from the public domain. Additionally, policy RUR11 indicates that the 50% threshold is not an absolute limit. 11. For the same reasons, I find no conflict with policy PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 (LPS) which permits extensions to dwellings in rural areas so long as the extension is not disproportionate to the original dwelling, or with the Framework which requires the same. The addition now proposed makes no significant difference to what has previously been constructed in terms of proportionality. 12. While several extensions and additions have been made to the original dwelling, I was able to see on my site visit that the current size and extent of the dwelling is comparable to adjoining dwellings and with which it would assimilate satisfactorily. 13. Therefore, I conclude that, considering the extent of the addition to the building’s envelope and to its external appearance when compared with previous additions, it would accord with policy RUR11 of the SADPD and with policy GP6 of the LPS. Character and appearance 14. The proposed extension would be constructed using external materials to match the existing dwelling and the replacement of the flat roof with a pitch roof would improve the appearance of the dwelling. 15. While the LPA considers that the proposed development would be an overly prominent, bulky, dominant and unbalanced addition to the host property, adversely affecting its character, the replacement of the flat roof with a pitched roof would improve the appearance of the dwelling. Proposed external materials would match those of the existing dwelling. Overall, it would assimilate sufficiently well with the design and proportions of the dwelling that exists now. Moreover, the proposed extension would not be particularly visible, if at all, from the public domain. 16. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with policy SE1 of the LPS and policies GEN1 and RUR11 of the SADPD which require development to be of good design which reflects the character and appearance of buildings, and with the Framework which requires the same. I do not find policy SD2 of the LPS to be particularly relevant, dealing as it does with the efficient use of land. Other Matters 17. The occupier of No. 2, Plant Lane objects to the proposed rear extension because of a loss of light, to overlooking of its garden, and to its over dominance. Such objections are supported by the Moston Parish Council. The LPA considers that, any overlooking of the adjoining garden would be confined to its middle and rear parts. In addition, there would be no east facing window openings, while to the west the enclosed balcony would not overlook any neighbouring habitable room windows or amenity space. It concludes that, on balance, the proposed development would be acceptable and I have no reason to disagree. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004700 4 Conditions 18. It is necessary that I impose a time limit condition in respect of the commencement of development. I have also imposed a condition in relation to the submitted plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 19. There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. S. Hartley INSPECTOR