First floor rear extension to create an additional floor with master bedroom and en-suite. Garage conversion and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2026 by C Evans MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008382 14 Sunningdale Way, Little Neston, Neston, Cheshire West and Chester CH64 0UY • 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 Michael Davies against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref is 26/00672/FUL. • The development proposed is first floor rear extension to create an additional floor with master bedroom and en-suite. Garage conversion and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. The changes to the Framework do not affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, have not consulted the parties with regard to these changes. Main Issues 3. The Council has raised no concerns regarding the garage conversion and link extension. Based on the information before me, I see no reason to take a different view. The main issues in dispute are the effect of the proposed first floor extension on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area; and • living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area. There are a range of house types, including bungalows and two-storey properties, which share common design features in the area. The host property is a detached bungalow with two- storey dwellings either side. They are sited in close proximity to each other. 5. The proposed first-floor extension would add a second storey to the rear of the property. It would add significant mass, which would be an over-dominant addition Appeal Decision 6008382 2 that would not appear subordinate to the host dwelling. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to the size of the plot or relate well with the street scene. 6. Whilst no significant changes are proposed to the front elevation, and the proposed first-floor extension would be to the rear of the dwelling; it would be clearly visible from the street scene. The mix of one and two storeys would result in a dwelling, which would be an incongruous addition, at odds with surrounding dwellings and the wider street scene. 7. I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. It would conflict with Policy ENV6 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part One Strategic Policies (adopted 2015) and policies DM3 and DM21 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part Two Land Allocations and Detailed Policies (adopted 2019) (Local Plan Part 2). Collectively, amongst other things, these require development proposals to respect local character and existing buildings within the site; and for extensions and alterations to dwellings to be subordinate to the original dwelling. Living conditions 8. A small side alley separates the proposal site from the adjoining property of No 12 Sunningdale Way. The frontages of both properties follow a similar build line; however, the host dwelling projects further into the rear garden when compared to No 12. The substantial mass of the extension, sited close to the boundary, would make the development overly dominant and oppressive for the occupiers of No 12. It would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook from their rear windows and garden. 9. The proposed height and mass of the extension would likely cause overshadowing and effect the levels of daylight and sunlight in the gardens of both adjoining properties and habitable rooms of No 12 for at least part of sunny days. No daylight and sunlight study has been submitted to quantify the impact on adjoining properties, and so I must rely on my own planning judgement. The likely loss of sunlight and daylight would unacceptably harm the affected rooms and rear gardens of neighbouring properties. 10. The new roof would feature rooflights and windows are proposed to the side elevations of the extension. Whilst separation distances are maintained and this is a suburban environment where properties are in close proximity, due to the siting of the host dwelling in relation to No 12, there would be a substantial loss of privacy from the resultant overlooking. 11. The appellant contends that existing boundary treatments provide a degree of screening. Be that as it may, this would not overcome the harm that I have identified above. 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would cause material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. It would therefore conflict with policies DM2 and DM21 of the Local Plan Part 2, insofar as they support development where it does not result in a significant adverse impact upon residential amenity. Appeal Decision 6008382 3 Other Matters 13. I note the comments regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application. These are matters between the respective parties, and it cannot have any bearing on my determination of this appeal. Planning Balance and Conclusion 14. The proposal would make efficient use of a generously sized residential plot and provide improved and sustainable living accommodation for the occupants. These benefits, however, would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 15. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. C Evans INSPECTOR