Appeal 3275188

The appeal is dismissed.

While the appellant has stated that the Council’s Officer Report does not present any issues with regards to the rear extension element of the proposal, the Decision Notice has refused the proposal as a whole in respect of the main issue. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The Government published on 20 July 2021 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Accordingly, and in light of the reference made to the previous iteration of the Framework within the submitted evidence, the parties have been provided with a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the publication. Any comments received have been taken into account in this decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal building is one half of a pair of semi detached two storey dwellings. It is a corner plot, stood off its side boundary where it abuts a walkway and an area of open space. It is therefore prominent in the public realm. The spacing to the side of the appeal building, along with the siting of No [address] with which it shares a consistent building line and the set back of Nos 68 to [address], gives the immediate area around the walkway a strong sense of spaciousness that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed side and rear extensions, whilst incorporating some subservient elements and materials and roof styles to match the host dwelling, would be built up to the side boundary adjacent the walkway. Not only would this present a largely blank, featureless and high sided masonry wall to the walkway, but it would noticeably and significantly reduce the spaciousness of the area. Accordingly it would cause harm to its character and appearance. This would result in conflict with Policies CP10 and CP17 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy Development Plan Document September 2013, the [address] Extensions Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (SPD) and the provisions of the Framework, which together seek to promote good design.

In some respects, such as the use of matching materials, design subservience and complementary roof shapes, the proposal would comply with the SPD. I also note that the SPD does not specifically reference dwellings situated alongside walkways. However, it does recognise the visual prominence of corner plots and advises that if extensions on these plots encroach beyond the main building lines on either street, they may have an adverse effect on the character of the area.

Other two storey side extensions are present on [address], including at the neighbouring attached dwelling and Nos. 20 and 22. While these were approved prior to the SPD, the guidance in place at the time was largely similar. Nonetheless, the appeal site is distinguished by its corner plot and adjacent walkway, where the impact of the proposal on the spaciousness of the area would cause harm. Although the addition at No. 22 is also built up to the side boundary, this is not a defining characteristic of the area. The appeal must be assessed on its own site specific circumstances and merits.

For the reasons given, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. There are no relevant material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.