Two storey side extension on the footprint of the existing single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2026 by A. J. Boughton MA (IPSD) Dip.Arch. Dip.(Conservation) RIBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010570 22 Shepton Road, Great Sutton, Ellesmere Port CH66 4RA • 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 Mr Craig Favager against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref is 26/00808/FUL. • The development proposed is Two storey side extension on the footprint of the existing single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development appearing on the decision letter differs from that provided on the application form and used by the appellant. Whilst the intended works are clear I have retained the description used by the applicant because this makes clear that the development for which permission is sought does not extend beyond the footprint of what currently exists. Main Issues 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site, 22 Shepton Road (No.22), is a semi-detached mid-twentieth century two storey house in an established residential area. The area has a calm suburban character with evidence of modest alterations to dwellings and some side extensions although the original pattern of development in good-sized plots with spacious fore-gardens is largely retained. No.22 is located on a corner plot at the junction with Wyndham Crescent with its side boundary enclosed by a high panel fence. A significant feature of the appeal site is the wide grassy verge at the Shepton Road frontage which complements the sense of openness provided at road junctions by the slightly more spacious corner plots such as the appeal site. The opposing corner plot, 2 Wyndham Crescent (No.2), is differently orientated1 facing onto Wyndham Crescent such that neither road visually dominates the junction. 1 1 It is similarly extended with a single storey side extension also set at some distance from its side boundary with Shepton Road. Appeal Decision 6010570 2 5. The proposal would directly replace an existing full-depth single-storey side extension, adding an upper storey set back from the front elevation and merging with the existing hipped roof of the host dwelling whilst retaining a significant width of side garden as currently exists but adding built form at height which would be prominent in approach views. 6. The Cheshire West and Chester Council, House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings SPD (2021) (House extensions SPD) sets out at Section 4 its approach to domestic extensions, including, at 4.6, requirements in relation to side extensions. However, the appeal site is located on a corner plot, and the Council point to an intrusive effect upon the street scene when side extensions at corners are unduly prominent. The House extensions SPD does not expressly refer to two- storey side extensions on corner plots2, nor do the relevant supporting diagrams in Appendix B. However it is clear that the guidance does not support side extensions which significantly project beyond the intersecting building line at road junctions as I find to be the case at the appeal site, and on that basis, the addition of built form above ground floor level plainly conflicts with the guidance provided. 7. ‘Building line’ is a term of art employed in the professions of planning and urban design relevant to matters of urban form and layout. In this case it is apparent that the upper storey of the proposed development would wholly fall beyond the relevant building line. That, in itself, is not a demonstration of planning harm, however, I have identified a spacious layout as an important characteristic of the development pattern of the area. Whilst both corner plots at the junction with Wyndham Crescent have single storey side extensions3, the addition of an upper storey would have the undesirable effect of significantly reducing the openness above ground floor level on one side of the junction, skewing the existing visual balance in orientation and massing of built form at this junction. This weighs heavily against the proposal. 8. The appellant refers to a decision of the Council at 45 Kendal Road where a similar extension to the appealed proposal may be found on a corner plot. However, it appears that this development was approved in 2018 before the adoption of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan ( Part 2: 2019) (CWCLP Part 2)4, and would have been carried out before the adoption of the House Extensions SPD with its references to building lines in 2021, consequently, other evidence absent, this suggested precedent attracts little weight. 9. Overall, the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area in conflict with Policies DM3 and DM21 of the CWCLP Part 2 which, taken together, seek high quality design that respects local character and distinctiveness, in keeping with original dwelling and the wider setting. Taking all matters raised into account, my reasoning directs that the development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole, such that the appeal cannot succeed. 2 House extensions SPD 4.8 & 4.9 3 which are more generously distanced from their respective side boundaries than the guidance requires 4 Incorporating Policies DM3 and DM21 of the of that Plan Andrew Boughton INSPECTOR