Appeal 3314803

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extension at [site address] , [name], Stockport [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, DC/086789, dated 12 October 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Ground Floor Plan – drawing ref. 02; Existing First Floor Plan – drawing ref. 03; [name] – drawing ref. 04; Existing Section A-A – drawing ref. 05A; Proposed Ground Floor Plan – drawing ref. 06E; Proposed First Floor Plan – drawing ref. 07D; [name] – drawing ref.08E; and Proposed Section A- A - drawing ref. 09B.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

An application for costs has been made by the appellant against Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

No. [site address] (No.12) is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located at the head of [address], a short residential cul-de-sac off [address]. The proposal is for a two-storey side extension which would have a total depth of around 6m and would extend a maximum of around 3.7m from the flank (east elevation).

The two semi-detached pairs at the head of the cul-de-sac are orientated toward each other, and approximately 45 degrees to the other dwellings, such that the rear building line of No.12 splays away from its non-attached neighbour. This means that the flank (side facing walls) are not particularly visible but also that there is a clear gap, or visual spacing, between the pairs which I observed contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The guidance in the Council’s Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (2011) is that a linked or infill effect between neighbouring dwellings should be avoided by leaving an adequate gap between the boundary and the side wall of the extension. Consistent with the SPD, the two storey extension has been set back more than 1m from the front elevation of No.12. Although the extension would be only 0.75m from the boundary, it has been designed with a staggered arrangement of three parts, with the front part only having a width of around 1.4m; the second part being offset from the front elevation by a further 1.9m.

I acknowledge that [address] has a semi-detached built form pattern and that there is fairly uniform spacing between the semi-detached pairs. However, the staggered design I have described and orientation of No.12 relative to its neighbour, means that only the first part of the extension (so a width of around 1.3m) would be seen. Whilst the visual space would inevitably be reduced, the change would not be particularly discernible especially in longer views from [address] and [address] opposite, and it would not be to such an extent to change the characteristic pattern of development. A visibly adequate gap would remain and I do not find that the extension would be overly prominent or result in a terracing effect that would unbalance the composition of [address].

I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed two-storey extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with saved Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) which requires residential extensions to complement the existing dwelling in terms of design, scale and materials and to not adversely affect the character of the street scene. It would also accord with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and National Design Guide (2021) that development should be of good design that is sympathetic to local character.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation of the planning permission, it is necessary in the interests of certainty to include a condition that specifies the approved drawings. To ensure a high quality design, it is also necessary to impose a condition that requires the external materials to match those of the host dwelling.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.