Two Storey Side Extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 June 2026 by Mrs Chris Pipe BA(Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009441 14 Grange Drive, Manchester M9 7AL • 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 Mike Bradley against the decision of Manchester City Council. • The application Ref is 144964/FH/2026. • The development proposed is described as a Two Storey Side Extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed Two Storey Side Extension at 14 Grange Drive, Manchester M9 7AL in accordance with the terms of the application, 144964/FH/2026 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan; Proposed Plans and Elevations Drawing No. 003; and Site - Existing & Proposed Drawing No. 502. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the hereby approved development shall match that of the existing built form. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property occupies a prominent corner plot at the entrance to Lea Drive within a predominantly residential area comprising a mixture of semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The surrounding development exhibits a relatively dense built form, where dwellings are positioned in close proximity to one another and where a variety of extensions and alterations have occurred over time. 4. The appeal property currently benefits from a detached garage positioned to the side of the dwelling. The proposed development would replace this structure with a two-storey side extension, the proposal also includes a ramp for entry to a door in the rear elevation. Whilst the proposed extension would not align with the building line of properties along Lea Drive, neither does the existing built form of the appeal Appeal Decision 6009441 2 property. The dwelling occupies a position that is already offset from the prevailing alignment of development within Lea Drive. Consequently, the extension would follow the established siting of the host dwelling on Grange Drive and whilst it would be obvious within the street scene, this would reflect the existing relationship between the appeal property and the surrounding dense built form rather than introducing a new or incongruous feature. 5. With regard to the effect of the extension on the open character of the corner plot and the resulting impact on the appearance of the area. I acknowledge that corner plots often make an important contribution to the visual spaciousness of a street scene and that the retention of gaps between buildings can assist in maintaining local character. 6. However, in this instance, the side of the appeal property is already occupied by a detached garage. Whilst the proposed extension would inevitably increase the overall built mass on the site, it would not result in the loss of an important open space. Furthermore, the surrounding area is characterised by a relatively compact pattern of development, and the proposal would be viewed within that context. 7. Of particular significance is the built form of No. 12 Grange Drive, located opposite the appeal site. This property has been extended by way of a two-storey side extension of broadly similar scale and form to that proposed. As a consequence, the appeal proposal would not appear as an isolated or incongruous feature within the street scene. Rather, the extension would create a balanced and symmetrical relationship with No. 12, with both properties occupying corresponding corner plots at the entrance to Lea Drive. 8. Whilst symmetry is not, in itself, determinative, the resulting visual relationship would provide a degree of cohesion at this gateway location. The extension would frame the entrance to the street and would appear as part of an established pattern of development rather than an intrusive departure from it. Although the proposal would project beyond the rear of the existing property and incorporate a dual- pitched roof form, I do not find that this would cause material harm to the character or appearance of the area when viewed in the context of the existing built forms within the area. 9. I have had regard to the previous appeal decision1 relating to the site. However, that appeal concerned a different scheme incorporating a substantial arrangement of extensions and roof alterations, including a two-storey rear and side extensions, rear dormer and hip-to-gable roof enlargement. The current proposal is considerably more limited in scope. Therefore, I find that the circumstances of the present appeal differ materially from those considered previously. 10. I agree with the previous Inspector's finding that the existing side extensions on neighbouring properties, which vary considerably in their age, design and scale, did not justify the extension proposed in that earlier appeal. However, those developments are part of the established character and appearance of the area. In the present case, the proposed two-storey side extension bears a close relationship in its scale and form to the extension at No. 12 Grange Drive. Although the extension would represent a substantial addition to the host dwelling and would not be markedly subservient, it would incorporate a set back from the principal 1 APP/B4215/D/25/3368918 Appeal Decision 6009441 3 elevation, ensuring that it remains visually identifiable as a later addition. Having regard to its siting, the corner plot context and the surrounding pattern of development, I find that the proposal would integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling and would not appear unduly dominant, incongruous or overbearing, nor would it give rise to unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the street scene. 11. The proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. There is no conflict with Policy DC1 of the Manchester Plan, the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (1995), Policies SP1 and DM1 of the Manchester's Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2012), and Policy JP P1 of Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 to 2039 (2024) which seek amongst other things to ensure that developments should be appropriate in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and detail having regard to the character of the surrounding area. 12. There is also no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings. The Council has referred to the 2025 consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework, however, this remains a consultation document and therefore carries limited weight. Conclusion and Conditions 13. For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. 14. I have imposed a standard condition relating to the commencement of development and a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area I have imposed a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance. Chris Pipe INSPECTOR