Double storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009139 14 Kentmore Close, Heaton Mersey SK4 3AL • 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 David Collins against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/097927. • The development proposed is a double storey side extension. 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 scheme. The main issue in regard to which is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 16 Kentmore Close (No. 16) with specific regard to privacy and the occupiers of Numbers 48 (No. 48) and 50 (No. 50) Woodlands Road, with specific regard to daylight and outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 3. The appeal property is a two-storey end-terraced dwelling set back from Kentmore Close. Unlike the majority of neighbouring dwellings, which front directly onto the highway, the terrace is orientated perpendicular to the prevailing street pattern. It occupies an elevated position in relation to the dwellings fronting Woodlands Road. 4. The proposed extension would be flush with the front elevation and whilst there is an existing degree of intervisibility between the appeal property and the rear garden of No. 16, the proposed side extension would introduce an additional window with a more direct outlook over that private amenity space. It would therefore exacerbate the existing situation and lead to both an actual loss of privacy and a perceived one by virtue of an additional window within such a short distance, for the occupiers of No. 16 when using their rear garden. 5. Likewise, the proposal would be constructed tight to the side plot boundary, which tapers from the front, narrowing towards the rear of the site. Consequently, the development would not comprise a single projecting side wall but would be articulated across three elevations. Nonetheless, the proposal would substantially intensify the built form along the boundary with Nos. 48 and 50, resulting in a lengthy two-storey expanse of brickwork. This would result in some loss of daylight to the private rear garden areas of Nos. 48 and 50. However, I note that they are Appeal Decision 6009139 2 relatively long and east facing. Consequently, any reduction in daylight would be largely confined to the morning period and would not materially affect the overall availability of daylight across the gardens. As such, the daylight effects would be limited and acceptable. 6. Nevertheless, owing to its height, scale and proximity to the shared boundaries, together with the appeal property's elevated position, the development would appear unduly dominant and oppressive when viewed from the private rear garden areas of Nos. 48 and 50, with the greatest impact experienced by the occupiers of No. 50. Resulting in an overbearing presence that would unacceptably erode the openness and outlook currently experienced by the users of these gardens. 7. The proposals would thus conflict with Policy SIE-1 of the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy DPD, 2011, and Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review, 2006. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure development respects the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings by ensuring a satisfactory level of living conditions. Other Matters 8. Of the cited examples, only limited information has been provided. They appear to occupy materially different spatial and visual contexts, with elements of subservience through step downs or setbacks from the original dwelling. None appear to replicate the end terraced elevated setting of the appeal site. In the absence of full planning histories, it is unclear under what policy context or design considerations these developments were permitted, or whether they pre‑date the adoption of the current design policies. 9. Whilst the Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, 2011 (SPD) is a material consideration that provides assistance in the interpretation and application of development plan policies, the appeal proposal has been assessed against the relevant adopted development plan policies. The reason for refusal is based upon conflict with those policies, having regard to the specific circumstances of the site, rather than a failure to comply with the SPD itself. 10. A condition requiring obscure glazing may afford privacy for the occupiers of No. 16 when using their rear garden, however, it would not represent a satisfactory solution. Requiring the glazing to remain permanently obscure would result in inadequate living conditions for future occupiers of that bedroom in terms of outlook. Consequently, imposing such a condition would replace one identified harm with another. The absence of neighbour objections does not change this. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6009139 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR