Appeal 3279348

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the Council made its decision, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been issued. I am satisfied that the changes to national policy do not materially affect the issues raised or prejudice the cases made by either party, and have determined this appeal in light of the 2021 version of the Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is located in a predominately residential area close to Bramhall Village. Properties in the wider area vary considerably in style, design and age, but [site address] (No. 18) forms one of a group of similarly designed dwellings which front onto [address], [address] and [address].

The houses along [address] which form part of this grouping are well set back from the road, with good sized gardens to the front and side. Wide, grassed corner verges lined with hedges contribute to the green and spacious character of this part of the street, and the substantial area of amenity space in front of [address] and [address], on the other side of the road, further add to the feeling of spaciousness along this section of [address].

No. 18 forms half of an irregular pair of semi detached houses, with its front gable facing onto [address] and a large side garden along [address]. The garden contributes to the open character of the area, providing a gap in built form between the appeal property and a row of older townhouses, the last of which is neighbouring property [address].

The siting of the proposed garage/home office would be appropriately set back from the street and would reflect the building line of [address]. However, the footprint of the proposed building would be greater that of the main, two storey part of the house, with the long side elevation facing onto [address] occupying a significant part of the garden. Large outbuildings are not a feature of the streetscene, and the proposed building would appear out of scale in relation to the existing dwelling.

The steeply pitched roof would reflect the roofs of other buildings around, but at around 3m, the eaves would be well above the height of the adjacent boundary hedge. Although single storey, the proposed garage would be of significant height as well as length along the [address] frontage. The existing evergreen hedge would provide partial screening, but the proposed building would be considerably higher than the hedge and would appear overly large, particularly when viewed from the other side of [address] and its junction with [address].

Owing to its size and overall height, the building would be a prominent addition to the streetscene which would harmfully erode the gap in built form and the spacious quality of this part of the street. The current view of the blank side elevation of [address] is broken up by a single storey element and does not appear as an obtrusive feature in the streetscene. As such, obscuring it would not be a benefit of the proposed scene.

The proposed garage/home office and play room would provide valuable space to meet the needs of the family as it grows, whilst retaining a reasonable amount of outdoor space. It would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and the choice of materials would be acceptable. However, these factors would not outweigh the harm to the streetscene that would be caused as a result of the excessive scale and height of the building.

I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with [name]-1 and CS8 of the [name] 2011, which require development to be of a high quality design, taking account of the site’s context in relation to surrounding buildings and spaces, and having regard to height and massing. There would be further conflict with Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan 2006, which requires that residential extensions do not adversely affect the character of the street scene.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and no other considerations outweigh this finding. The appeal is therefore dismissed.