Described as, ‘Householder Application for Detached Outbuilding and Boundary Treatments at No. 1 Berkeley Crescent, Wistaston

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007824 1 Berkeley Crescent, Wistaston, Crewe CW2 6QA • 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 John Flanagan against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref is 25/4767/HOUS. • The development proposed is described as, ‘Householder Application for Detached Outbuilding and Boundary Treatments at No. 1 Berkeley Crescent, Wistaston’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The area around the appeal site is predominantly residential, comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings set well back from the road, including on corner plots. Many properties include garages, although these are typically set back from the principal elevation of the dwelling. Boundary treatments along the road are varied but generally low in height, including hedging, open iron railings, timber fencing and dwarf brick walls. Consequently, the area has a spacious, relatively open character despite the frontage treatments. 5. The appeal site occupies a corner plot at the junction of Berkeley Crescent and Crewe Road. The existing driveway and parking area is enclosed by a low brick wall with sections of timber fencing above, supplemented by hedging and trees which provide additional screening. 6. The proposed fencing would have a degree of set back from the highway due to the verge and proposed hedging. Notwithstanding this, its solid design and height would appear unduly prominent and out of keeping with the more open and low- level boundary treatments characteristic of the area. Although the hedging would provide some screening once it reached a sufficient height and density, the Appeal Decision 6007824 2 combined height and form would still introduce an uncharacteristically tall and visually intrusive boundary, and the planting would take time to establish. 7. The example at 543 Crewe Road appears to feature a lower timber fence and does not provide a comparable appearance. Furthermore, it is itself an unusual feature in the street scene, which is characterised by lower boundary treatments. Consequently, it is not characteristic of the area and does not justify the proposed fence. 8. Whilst the proposed garage would not be sited directly on the boundary with Berkeley Crescent, it would sit against the boundary wall. Given its proximity to the site edge, together with its height, bulk and siting, it would appear as a prominent and uncharacteristic feature within the Berkeley Crescent street scene. This prominence would be further heightened by its corner plot location at the entrance to Berkeley Crescent, where visibility is greater. 9. The site would retain a relatively spacious forecourt and, therefore, the proposed garage would not constitute overdevelopment of the site. Nevertheless, there are no other comparable outbuildings positioned close to the road within Berkeley Crescent. The proposed garage would extend beyond the prevailing building line seen along this side of Berkeley Crescent. Consequently, it would reduce the openness and sense of spaciousness resulting from the current significant gap between the dwelling and the road. Accordingly, the proposal would result in the erosion of the open corner character which is characteristic of the area. 10. The proposed garage would feature high-quality materials reflecting the host dwelling and would sit below the ridge height of the main dwelling. Whilst the garage would extend slightly forward of part of the front elevation and align with the dwelling’s foremost projection, it would be significantly lower in height and smaller in scale than the main host dwelling. Therefore, the garage and host dwelling would reflect a subservient relationship with one another. Nevertheless, its scale and siting would result in a visually dominant structure in the street scene from Berkeley Crescent. In particular, the gable end would be clearly visible above the boundary treatment, adding to its overbearing appearance within the street scene. 11. Given the above, the proposed garage and boundary treatment alterations would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with policies SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (2017), and policies GEN 1 and HOU11 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022) which require that design solutions are in keeping with the character and appearance of their surroundings and achieve a sense of place by protecting, enhancing and reinforcing distinctiveness in terms of height, scale, form and relationships to neighbouring properties, street scene and the wider neighbourhood. They also require development to reflect the local character and design preferences set out in the Cheshire East Borough Design Guide supplementary planning document. 12. Policy SD1 is a high-level policy concerned with the overarching principles of sustainable development. Given that the proposal relates to the character and appearance of a domestic extension, I do not consider this policy to be directly applicable to the main issue of the appeal. Appeal Decision 6007824 3 Other Matters 13. Whilst no harm has been found regarding neighbouring living conditions, highway safety, parking provision or the principle of a domestic addition on this site, these matters are neutral considerations which do not weigh in favour of the proposal. 14. The proposal would result in improved storage for the dwelling. However, the benefits of this are limited to the occupiers of the dwelling, and so do not outweigh the identified harm. 15. Whilst the appellant suggests that proportionate refinements could be secured, the appeal process is not a means by which to amend or alter a scheme. I do not have any drawings before me of the alternative fence and garage designs described, therefore it has not been demonstrated that such alternatives would overcome the harm I have identified. Furthermore, neither the Council nor interested parties have had the chance to comment on such changes. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the plans before me, and it would not be fair or reasonable to consider securing such amendments by planning condition. Conclusion and Recommendation 16. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR