Described on the planning application form as a ‘First floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 September 2026 by A Hartley, LLB (Hons), Solicitor, MBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal Ref: 6013845 65 Cherry Lane, Sale, Trafford M33 4WE • 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 Jamie Street against the decision of Trafford Council. • The application Ref is 118655/HHA/26. • The development is described on the planning application form as a ‘First floor side and rear extension.’ - Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side and rear extension at 65 Cherry Lane, Sale, Trafford M33 4WE in accordance with the terms of the application reference 118655/HHA/26 and 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 strictly in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Plans (Drawing No. 1559-01); Existing Elevations (Drawing No. 1559-02); Proposed Plans (Drawing No. 1559- 03); Proposed Elevations (Drawing No. 1559-04); Roof Plans (Drawing No. 1559-05) and Existing Site and Location Plan (Drawing No. 1559-06). 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised since the parties made their original submissions. The main parties have been invited to make further representations in relation to the Framework. Any representations received have been taken into consideration. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, with an existing single storey side extension. It is set back from the road frontage with hardstanding to the front. The surrounding area is characterised on the southern Appeal Decision 6013845 2 side of Cherry Lane by pairs of semi-detached dwellings of similar original design. Some have side extensions up to the boundary; some have side extensions set back from the front elevation and some retain gaps at first floor level. 5. The appeal property is situated at a curve in the road and therefore 63 Cherry Lane (No 63) is angled away from the appeal property at the front when viewed within the street scene. This results in the gap between these two properties being wider at the front than the rear. 6. The proposal would introduce a first floor side extension and rear extension. It would be set back from the front elevation of the appeal property and so would maintain the separation distance from the side elevation of No 63 at the front of the properties that would be seen within the immediate street scene. 7. The proposal would however not be in accordance with SPD4 – A Guide for Designing House Extensions and Alterations (2012) (SPD) in that due to the angle of these two properties the separation distance at the rear of the side boundary with No 63 would be less than the recommended 1 metre. 8. My attention is drawn to a planning permission1 for a first floor side and rear extension. I have no reason to conclude that this planning permission would not be implemented if the appeal proposal is dismissed and therefore have considered it to be a legitimate fallback position. The extant permission differs from the appeal proposal in that the first floor side extension is set in from the side boundary to maintain a 1 metre gap at first floor level, and so would have less impact on the character of the street scene than the appeal proposal in this respect. 9. From my observations on site, I do not consider the appeal proposal would result in a cramped form of development. Due to the angle of the properties at the curve in Cherry Lane and the set back of the side extension from the front elevation, I do not consider that the reduced gap at first floor level and the proximity to No 63 to the rear of the side boundary would unacceptably reduce the sense of spaciousness experienced within the street scene. 10. Overall, I find that notwithstanding the identified conflict with the Council’s SPD, within its context, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and the street scene. 11. The proposal would provide additional floorspace within the curtilage. As I find the proposal to be consistent with the overall street scene, I have afforded substantial weight in the planning balance to the benefit of additional floorspace in line with Policy L2 of the Framework. 12. Consequently, I find that the proposal complies with policy L7 of the Trafford Core Strategy (2012), that, amongst other things, seeks development that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. Conditions and Conclusion. 13. I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in Policy DM6 of the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition specifying the 1 118066/HHA/25 Appeal Decision 6013845 3 approved plans to provide certainty and a condition relating to materials in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. 14. The proposed development would comply with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. A Hartley INSPECTOR