Demolition of existing garage and erection of detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2026 by S Ashworth BA (Hons) BPI MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6015083 1 Massey Road, Sale, M33 2JN • 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 Nertil Balliu against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 119052/HHA/26. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage and erection of detached garage. Erection of two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, Nos 2 and 4 Mayfield Avenue, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. 1 Massey Road (No.1) is a two-storey, semi-detached house located in a well- established residential area. The property shares a boundary with Nos 2 and 4 Mayfield Avenue which are also semi-detached houses. The rear of those properties faces the side of No1. 4. The proposal is the erection of a two-storey side extension to form an additional living room with bedroom above, following the demolition of the existing detached garage. The Council note, and it is not disputed, that the extension would be 7.1m high to the ridge and 5.1m high to the eaves and would be sited 1m from the boundary of the site with Nos 2 and 4. The garage would be replaced by a smaller outbuilding within the rear garden to which no objection has been raised. 5. Policy L7.3 of the Trafford Core Strategy requires that development must not prejudice the amenity of future occupiers and/or the occupants of adjacent properties by reason of, amongst other things, overbearing, overshadowing, overlooking or visual intrusion. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document SPD 4: A Guide for Designing House Extensions & Alterations provides more detailed guidance and requires a minimum separation distance of 15m between a blank gable wall of one property and a facing habitable room window of another, noting that every application will be treated on its merits and exceptions may apply. Appeal Decision 6015083 2 6. No 2 Mayfield Road, which appears to have been altered at ground floor level, has a first floor window directly facing the site. No 4 has windows at ground and first floor level. The gardens to those properties are limited both in terms of their overall size and length between the building and the boundary which is marked by a hedge. The dwellings pre-date the Council’s current guidance but nevertheless the distance between No 1 Massey Road, as it exists relative to the windows in the neighbouring properties, falls short of the minimum requirement. In addition, a side facing first floor habitable window, a common feature of similarly designed houses locally, directly faces the neighbouring properties and fails to meet guidance relating to overlooking and privacy. 7. The proposal would, in effect, bring the two-storey side gable of No 1 some 3m closer to the rear windows of the neighbouring properties and would be only 1m from the boundary. Even though the extension would be lower in height than the existing dwelling, and would not extend across the full depth of it, it would nevertheless form a high brick wall of considerable length close to the boundary. As such it would create an overbearing sense of enclosure and would be visually intrusive and dominant when viewed from inside the neighbouring houses and particularly from within their gardens. Whilst I acknowledge that this is a built up area, with, in some instances, limited separation between properties, this does not justify a harmful development. 8. A benefit of the proposal would be the removal of the side window facing the neighbouring properties which would improve the level of privacy neighbouring occupiers experience and as such this is a balanced decision. However, the buildings have co-existed for a considerable period and it is likely that the houses have been bought and sold over the years with an understanding of, and allowance for, this established situation regarding privacy. On balance therefore, the benefit gained from the removal of the window is outweighed by the harm that would be caused by the adverse impact of the extension. 9. For these reasons the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 2 and 4 Mayfield Road and as such would be contrary to the requirements of Policy L7 of the Core Strategy. Other Matters 10. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation for the occupants of No1. This is a private benefit which carries limited weight in support of the appeal. 11. There is a suggestion in the appeal documents that the Council may have permitted a smaller extension had amended plans been provided. Be that as it may, I can only make my decision on the basis of the plans before me. Conclusion 12. The proposal is contrary to the development plan as set out above. Taking all I have seen and read into account, there are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan. On that basis the appeal is dismissed. S Ashworth INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6015083 3 Appeal Decision 6015083 4