Appeal 3296638

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side extension at first floor level, constructed over existing single storey attached garage at [site address] , Davyhulme, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 106140/HHA/21, dated 15 October 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 009-001; 09-002; 09-004; 09-100A; 09-101A and 09-102A.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building as specified within the application form.

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

No [site address] (No 9) is a detached two storey dwelling in an established residential area consisting of a predominant mix of detached and semi-detached properties of similar character in the tree-lined street. The property consists of brick walls and a dark tiled pitched roof. It has an existing single storey side garage with a crenelated façade that has a limited set back from the main front building line of No 9 and projects up to the side boundary with No 7. A single storey rear extension lies beyond the side garage, whilst the modest front garden has been given over to hardstanding used for off street parking and is bounded by low brick walls with taller brick piers.

The proposal comprises a first floor side extension over the existing single storey attached garage and, therefore, would also adjoin the side boundary with No 7. However, the extension would incorporate an additional set back when compared with the existing garage of approaching 1.5m from the main front building line of the host property, and it would also incorporate a similar roof with a matching eaves line and reduced ridge height.

The Trafford Council Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 - A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations, adopted February 2012 (SPD), emphasises that gaps in between buildings and the space surrounding them make an important contribution to an area’s character. In that context, it provides guidance in seeking to ensure that side extensions should be appropriately scaled, designed and sited. This includes a permissive approach for proposals for two storey side extensions or first floor additions with regard to, amongst other things, being in keeping with the prevailing pattern of residential development and not eroding the amount of space surrounding the dwelling. Relevant to this and particularly referencing a row of closely spaced detached or semi-detached houses, it indicates that a gap of a minimum of 1m should be retained between the side elevation of an extended property and its side boundary. The SPD guides that an extension which results in a detached house being sited close up to the boundary on both sides at two storey height is likely to appear unduly cramped and out of character with the area.

The extension would fail to achieve the minimum 1m to the side boundary with No 7 as normally sought by the SPD and thereby would reduce the first floor gap between closely spaced detached properties. However, sufficient side space to the boundary with No 11 would remain to ensure that No 9 would not appear unduly cramped in its plot. Furthermore, the proposal has been carefully designed to respect the character of No 9 and the properties immediately surrounding, including complementary building lines, roof form, roof line, eaves, materials and window design. The resultant demarcation of the building line and height of the first floor extension from the main dwelling and the garage below would limit its perceived bulk and massing when viewed from the street, whilst providing visual interest and necessarily breaking the continuity of built form. The design of the extension would, therefore, ensure that it is proportionate and complementary to No 9 and surrounding properties.

In reaching the above view, I observed that No 9 has similar characteristics to the detached properties to either side including coherence of building lines and distinctive bay window outriggers at the front. The adjoining properties also have existing two storey side extensions, albeit that No 7 is opposite handed. Consequently, when viewed in its surrounding context, the proposal would appear similar in design and proportions to and, therefore, would enhance the rhythm with existing extensions at Nos 7, 11 and 13 (which predate the adoption of the SPD). As such the extension would assimilate appropriately into the established pattern of development of closely spaced dwellings which is a characteristic and prevailing feature of the immediate street scene.

It follows that, whilst the proposed extension would not fully meet the listed criteria in the SPD where proposals for first floor additions will normally be acceptable, it is also not in a location where the existing gap at first floor level is important to defining the character of the street scene or necessary to prevent an unrelieved mass of built form or a terracing effect. This is noting that the siting of No [address] to the shared boundary, to an extent that it is reasonable that it is unlikely to be developed at the side so as to result in a further loss of the gap to No 9 that would otherwise remain at both ground floor and first floor level. The remaining gap would be in keeping with established relationships between surrounding properties. As such I find that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable loss of spaciousness when viewed from [address]. There also would be no effect on existing parking or access arrangements and as the extension would not project beyond the existing building lines of No 9, there would be no harmful effect on the living conditions of their occupiers.

Examples of side extensions in the wider area have been drawn to my attention in [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address], [address] and Kingsway Park, which include Council decisions on planning applications and previous appeal decisions1 that post-date the adoption of the SPD. Whilst there are parallels with the proposal before me in most of those cases, including a variety of established extensions in each surrounding context, I observed that there are differences in the character of each street scene and also that the examples are sufficiently distant to not be seen as setting a precedent for proposals within [address]. As such I have necessarily reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal before me, considering the extension at No 9 on its own merits relative to the character of its immediate surroundings in [address].

Having regard to all of the above and notwithstanding the limited conflict with the SPD, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area. The development, therefore, does not conflict with Policy L7 of the [name], adopted January 2012, insofar as it amongst other things seeks design quality including appropriateness to its context, whilst enhancing the street scene or character of the area by appropriately addressing scale, density, height, massing, layout, elevation treatment and materials. The policy is broadly consistent in seeking well-designed places with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to which I also find no conflict.

The Council recommended three conditions be imposed should I be minded to allow the appeal, which I have considered against the tests of the Framework and advice provided in Planning Practice Guidance. To provide certainty of the permission granted, it is necessary to impose conditions setting out the standard time limit and to specify the approved plans. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition is also required to ensure that materials match the existing dwelling as specified on the application form.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out previously.