Extension of existing garage and conversion into summer house/home office

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 September 2026 by J Buxton BA(Hons) DipArch ARB RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012908 70 Elizabeth Street, Manchester M8 8BQ • 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 Dev Dev against the decision of Manchester City Council. • The application reference is 144333/FH/2025. • The development proposed is described as extension of existing garage and conversion into summer house/home office. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. During the course of the appeal a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the format has altered, any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed. I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. 3. At the time of my site visit, I saw that development had been undertaken. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the information shown on the plans and not what has been constructed on site. The appeal before me is not retrospective and the commencement of works does not influence my assessment. I have determined the appeal on its planning merits, based on the evidence provided. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on parking provision serving the host dwelling and its impact on local parking conditions. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a detached dwelling on Elizabeth Street, a primary road into Manchester. It benefits from a garage located to the rear which is accessed via a garage court from Larch Gardens. The appeal development comprises the erection of a single- storey extension to that building and its conversion from a garage to a summer house/home office. As a result, the building would no longer function as a parking facility serving the dwelling. 6. The appeal garage forms part of a group of garages approved as part of the wider residential development. The appellant contends that the garage is not used for vehicle parking due to the restricted nature of the access route and limited manoeuvring space within the parking court. Photographs, aerial imagery and a parking layout plan have been submitted in support of that position along with a plan intended to demonstrate constrained manoeuvring arrangements. I accept that access to the parking court is restricted and that Appeal Decision 6012908 2 manoeuvring may be constrained. However, those limitations do not alter the fact that the garage can still be accessed for the parking of a vehicle. Regardless of how frequently it is used, it remains an existing off-street parking space associated with the dwelling. 7. The evidence indicates that parking demand already exists within the locality. This was readily apparent at the time of my site visit, when vehicles occupied much of the available space within the head of the cul-de-sac serving the garage court. Whilst the appellant relies on these parking conditions to demonstrate the practical difficulties associated with using the garage, they equally demonstrate that demand for parking within the locality is already high and that available parking opportunities are limited. 8. The proposal would remove the only off-street parking space associated with the dwelling. As a result, current or future occupiers would be more likely to rely on parking within the surrounding highway network. Although the displacement arising from a single dwelling may be modest in isolation, the parking conditions I observed indicate that available parking capacity is already limited. In these circumstances, the loss of even a single dedicated off-street parking space would place additional pressure on existing parking provision and further intensify competition for available spaces. 9. The appellant also explains that they do not own a car and therefore do not use the garage for parking purposes. However, planning permission runs with the land rather than an individual occupier. This assessment must therefore consider the reasonable requirements of future occupiers as well as those of the appellant. Future occupiers may have different transport choices and parking requirements. Consequently, I attach limited weight to the appellant's personal needs. 10. Drawing these matters together, I conclude that the proposal would fail to retain appropriate parking provision for the host dwelling, which would increase reliance on parking within the surrounding highway network in an area where parking demand is already high. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy T2 of the Manchester Core Strategy, which seeks to ensure that development provides appropriate parking provision. It would also fail to accord with Policy DM1 insofar as it seeks to ensure that development appropriately addresses parking requirements and does not give rise to unacceptable effects on the surrounding area. For similar reasons, the proposal would conflict with saved Policy DC1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester. Other Matters 11. The appellant also refers to the availability of public transport in the area. Whilst I have had regard to this, the existence of alternative transport options does not alter my finding that the proposal would remove an existing off-street parking space associated with the dwelling. 12. In addition, the fact that another garage within the court has been converted to an alternative use does not justify the loss of further parking provision and does not alter my findings on the appeal proposal. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. J Buxton INSPECTOR