Addition of a single storey room to side of the house and extension of usable/liveable space upstairs to make use of wasted space created by the sloped roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011066 Blackthorn Cottage, Congleton Road, Smallwood, Cheshire East CW11 2UZ • 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 Alexander King Boote against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref is 25/3721/HOUS. • The development proposed is addition of a single storey room to side of the house and extension of usable/liveable space upstairs to make use of wasted space created by the sloped roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed extension of usable/liveable space upstairs to make use of wasted space created by the sloped roof. 2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed addition of a single storey room to side of the house. Planning permission is therefore granted for the addition of a single storey room to side of the house at Blackthorn Cottage, Congleton Road, Smallwood, Cheshire East CW11 2UZ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3721/HOUS, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans insofar as it relates to the addition of a single storey room to side of the house only: 00-001 (Site Location Plan), 00-003 Rev C (Proposed Site Plan) and 00-004 Rev E (Existing and Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Appeal Procedure 3. 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 Matters 4. On 17 August 2026 the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Having reviewed the changes, they do not affect the Appeal Decision 6011066 2 substance of the main issue in the appeal. Since they would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation with the main parties. 5. Notwithstanding the description of the development in the banner heading above which is taken from the planning application form and was used by the Council in its decision notice, the development as described on drawing no 00-003 Rev C (Proposed Site Plan) comprises a proposed first floor extension and a proposed side extension. Therefore, this is the wording I have used to describe the proposal in the reasons for the recommendation below. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached two-storey dwelling which is situated in a rural area. The dwelling is part of a group of converted barns which are setback from Congleton Road via a private access track. The appeal site and its immediate surroundings include the converted barns, their gardens and a courtyard parking area to the front, some outbuildings, and there is also a separate two-storey detached dwelling nearby. The wider area surrounding the site comprises fields. 8. When viewed from the courtyard area to the front of the buildings, the simple horizontal form and the consistent materials of the converted barns signify the rural character of the group of buildings including the appeal dwelling. This includes their simple gable roof forms and their plain roof slopes. Even though the building’s rear roof section includes a catslide element, rooflights and flues, the majority of the rear roofslope is also plain and clutter free. Overall, the simple roof form with generally plain roofslopes contributes positively to the rural character of the host dwelling. It also helps to unify the appearance of Blackthorn Cottage and Mulberry Cottage as a pair, as well as the unified appearance of the converted barns as a whole. Proposed First Floor Extension 9. The proposed first floor extension would be set in from the extremities of the original roof. Even so, due to its notable depth and width, it would appear as a bulky and prominent addition which would detract from the simple roof form of the host dwelling. Although its design including mansard walls and feature canopy is intended to have a barn-like appearance, this would still contrast with the mostly plain rear roofslope of this particular converted barn. Furthermore, due to its size and position, the window in the extension would not correspond with the windows at the ground floor level below. Consequently, the first-floor extension would be an incongruous addition to the host dwelling which would erode the simple form and rural character of the converted barn, as well as the visual unity of the pair. 10. In drawing these conclusions, I acknowledge that the first floor extension would be located on the rear roof slope and would have limited public visibility given the site’s location down a private access track. Even so, it would still be visible from vantage points including from neighbouring gardens and the surrounding fields. In any case, a lack of public visibility does not override the need to create well-designed places. Indeed, policy DP3 of the Framework advises that developments should respond to Appeal Decision 6011066 3 their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings, including through architectural features. 11. Aside from the plans, I do not have the full planning background of the various developments relating to first floor extensions which are referred to by the appellant in order to give them significant weight in the appeal. From the evidence before me, the development shown in application reference 24/0894N is a more comprehensive extension to a dwelling which includes dormer windows which are smaller in scale and simpler in design than the appeal proposal. The development shown in application reference 24/0710M is also different because it does not appear to propose a single dormer window set within a roofslope. Overall, the schemes do not appear to be directly comparable and in any event, they do not alter my conclusions on the proposed first floor extension. 12. For the above reasons, the proposed first floor extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would conflict with policies SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 (2017) (LPS) and policy GEN1 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022) (SADPD). Amongst other matters, these require that development proposals are high-quality and make a positive contribution to their surroundings and the area’s character and identity including in terms of external design features. It would also be contrary to the objectives of the Framework in terms of providing high-quality places. Proposed Side Extension 13. Although the proposed side extension would occupy an off-centre position on the side elevation of the building, this would allow it to be setback from the front elevation of the host dwelling. The mono-pitched roof form would also deviate from the main roof form; however, this would not be prominent given its discreet location on the side and that the height of the extension would be limited to single storey. It would therefore be viewed as a subservient addition. Moreover, the window on the front of the extension would align with the windows on the ground floor of the front elevation. The materials to be used in the extension would also generally match those used at the host building. Accordingly, the side extension would be a sympathetic addition to the host dwelling which would not erode the simple form and rural character of the converted barns. 14. For the above reasons, the proposed side extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would comply with the design objectives of policies SE1 and SD2 of the LPS and policy GEN1 of the SADPD, as well as the Framework. As the proposed side extension is clearly severable from the proposed first floor extension on the plans, a split decision would be a reasonable outcome for the appeal. Other Matters 15. I am aware that the scheme has evolved and that the first floor extension has been redesigned following a previous application and discussion with the Council. However, although the efforts to secure a suitable scheme are recognised, this does not change my recommendation which is ultimately based on the plans on which the Council made its decision. Appeal Decision 6011066 4 16. I sympathise with the appellant in terms of their desire to provide additional space to meet their family’s needs and to stay in an area where the family are settled and have connections. However, personal circumstances such as this seldom outweigh general planning considerations and they do not in this case. I also note the benefits of the proposal in terms of improving the property, but there is little to suggest that without the first floor extension, the long-term use and efficiency of the building would be compromised. 17. Even if the appellant considers that the Council’s assessment in its officer report is contradictory, the Council’s reason in its decision notice is unambiguous in that it considers the proposal to be harmful in terms of character and appearance. In any event, it is clear to me that Green Belt considerations are starkly different to matters concerning good design. I have dealt with this as a main issue accordingly. 18. I also note that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that the Council identified no harm other than to character and appearance, and that no objections were received from neighbours. However, these are all neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal. 19. Finally, although the Parish Council support the proposal, albeit its support is not substantiated by any reasons, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of character and appearance. Conditions 20. With regards to the part of the scheme that I have recommended should be allowed, the standard time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of clarity and certainty. A materials condition is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 21. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 22. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is subject to a split decision. B Plenty INSPECTOR