First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005027 410 Huddersfield Road, Stalybridge, Tameside, SK15 3ET • 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 S Holt against the decision of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00852/FUL. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. In its decision notice, the Council refers to the National Planning Policy Framework and to its Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2012). It does not specify any development plan policies. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey end-of-terrace dwelling. It is located in a residential area largely characterised by the presence of two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings. 5. The appeal property faces towards and is set well back from, the main Huddersfield Road, being separated from it by a wide pavement, a stone wall, public open space, an access road, a hedgerow and a front garden area. It has a single storey extension to the side, which extends to the edge of the pavement. To the rear, there is a small garden area and a small detached single garage with a flat roof. 6. During my site visit, I observed that the presence of open green spaces combines with the setting back of dwellings behind front garden and/or parking areas to provide for a notably spacious character. Further, along with the green spaces, the presence of trees, gardens and distant views to surrounding hills afford the area an attractive sense of greenery. Appeal Decision 6005027 2 7. Many dwellings in the area, including the appeal dwelling, are of a similar design and comprise similar brick and tile materials. This, together with a distinctive pattern of development arising from the regular, aligned set-back of dwellings from the road results in a positive rhythmic and uniform character. This sense of rhythm and uniformity is especially noticeable as one travels along Shakespeare Avenue, which runs alongside the appeal property. 8. The proposed development would result in the appeal dwelling extending to the side, to the edge of the pavement, at two-storey height. The roof of the extension would match and would not be set down from the ridge of the host dwelling. 9. The appeal dwelling’s existing side extension is only single storey in height, with a gently sloping roof. As such, whilst it steps forward of the build-line along Shakespeare Avenue, it does not draw attention to itself due to rising only slightly above the height of existing front boundary features along that street. 10. By way of contrast, the proposed development would be of such a height and overall scale that it would appear as a large and tall feature projecting well-forward of the established build-line along Shakespeare Avenue. As such, the proposal would protrude to the extent that it would draw attention to itself as an unduly prominent and incongruous addition. The proposal would appear out of character with its surroundings, to the detriment of the area’s spacious, uniform and rhythmic qualities. 11. Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Other Matters 12. The appellants, in support of their case, state that permitted development rights provide an opportunity for a sizeable rear dormer to be added to the rear roof plane of the appeal dwelling and that such a development would create a more prominent feature than the proposed development. Whether or not this is this case, I confirm that I have considered this appeal on the basis of the information before me, noting that the planning application the subject of this appeal was for a two storey side extension. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR