Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 July 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009812 21 Church Street, Wincham, Northwich CW9 6EP • 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 Carolyn Sherratt against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref is 25/03127/FUL. • The development proposed is a single storey rear 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. Preliminary Matter and Main Issue 3. The Council has found that the proposals would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt by virtue of their compliance with an exception in paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In so finding, the Council is also satisfied that the effect on the openness of the Green Belt would be acceptable. I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions in either respect. The main issue therefore is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 19 Church Street (No. 19) with specific regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property comprises a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling with a two- storey rear outrigger. The proposal would extend beyond the existing rear elevation along the shared boundary with No. 19 and wrap around the rear outrigger. Consequently, it would create a long, high and largely featureless brick elevation on the boundary with No. 19. Due to its scale, siting and proximity to the neighbouring property, the extension would appear unduly dominant and overbearing when viewed from the rear ground floor room nearest the boundary. This would result in an unacceptably poor standard of outlook therefrom for the occupiers of No. 19. 5. Likewise, the increased massing along the boundary would intensify overshadowing and unacceptably reduce the availability of natural daylight into what is the sole window serving this habitable room. Given the orientation of the Appeal Decision 6009812 2 properties, this effect would be particularly noticeable during the afternoon. As a result, the room would become noticeably darker, contributing to an unacceptably poor standard of living conditions for the occupiers of No. 19. 6. The appeal proposals would therefore conflict with Policy SOC 5 of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan, Part One: Strategic Policies, 2015, Policies DM 2 and DM 21 of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan, Part Two: Land Allocations and Detailed Policies, 2019, and guidance in the Supplementary Planning Document: House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings, 2021. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure development does not result in a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of existing properties, including outlook and light. Other Matters 7. Permitted development rights may allow for the construction of a similar development. However, I have assessed the proposal on the basis that planning permission is required and is applied for in this instance. Whilst I note the appellant's comments regarding the existing levels of outlook and natural light within the appeal property, the appeal must also be determined on the effects of the proposed development in the wider sense. 8. Likewise, any privacy benefit would be modest and would arise only because the proposal would introduce substantial built form immediately adjacent the window. Consequently, the limited improvement in privacy does not outweigh the harm I have identified above. I note the appellant’s comments regarding inaccuracies in the Council's delegated report. However, these have little bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the appeal proposals, along with my own observations. Any further concerns in this regard should be directed to the Council. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. 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 Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR