Appeal 3330490

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the determination of this application a revised National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) was published in early September 2023 whose main focus was not directly relevant to this appeal. Nevertheless, I have determined this appeal in accordance with the revised provisions within the Framework.

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

The appeal property is a mid 20th century semi detached house within a row of around 8 other houses of a very similar architectural style. Each pair of houses is clearly distinguishable with the streetscene and exhibits a mix of red brick and render materials with quoins extending to the eaves line at the corners. A central chimney stack and rosemary tiled fully hipped roof lends a sense of symmetry to each pair of houses. To the front the property contains a single parking space and tall hedge that I consider would be typical of the style and age of such houses. To the rear a long and linear garden extends away from the house.

[address] does exhibit a variety of houses of different ages and architectural styles, the group of houses that number 62 is part of represent a fairly consistent and legible row of mid century semi detached buildings that reflect the original design intent of the street here. As such I consider that the Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/A0660/D/23/3330490 relative intact aesthetic of this frontage, along with the gaps between properties, presents a positive aspect within the streetscene.

The proposal before me seeks permission to extend with a single and two storey extension to the side and rear of the existing house so as to increase the internal floor space required for a growing family. As a result, the entrance hall would be increased through a single storey front extension and the dining room and kitchen area would be made into a large, open plan family room. Added to this, bedrooms would be improved upstairs through re-configuring existing spaces and through a rear two storey projection.

In assessing this appeal I am aware of the Council’s policies encouraging good contextual design, including Policies SD1, SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan (CELPS) as well as those policies GEN1 and HOU11 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD) which reflect the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document1 (SPD) which encourage good design and seek to ensure house extensions are in keeping with an area’s character and appearance.

As alluded to above, I consider that there is importance in the fact that this row of semi detached houses are relatively unaltered in terms of extensions that affect the front. As a result, the gaps between the houses are typically as built originally, with the exception of some single storey side extensions. This is important because it adds to the legibility of the streetscene and enhances the semi detached nature of these properties.

[name] saw on my site visit that there was a variety in the gaps and spaces around houses farther along [address], it was noticeable that this row of semi detached houses were largely un-extended, regular and consistent. As such I consider that this is a very positive attribute of this part of [address] that should be carefully managed.

The proposal, despite it being set back some way and set down in the ridge, would contribute to a significant erosion of this character through extending to the side in such a manner and losing the spaciousness and gaps between houses. [name] recognise that it would be very difficult to extend to any meaningful degree to the side without encompassing the whole of this gap, I ultimately consider that such an action would be highly regrettable and contribute to serious harm to the character of the streetscene.

Ultimately, although I consider that there would be ways to extend this property so as to obtain something like the level of accommodation needed, the proposal before me would cause a noticeable change in character here that would be contrary to the above policies and would cause harm to the streetscene as a result.

As such, I consider that the proposal would remain in conflict with Policies SD1, SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan (CELPS) as well as Policies GEN1 and HOU11 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD). 1 Cheshire East Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/A0660/D/23/3330490

For the reasons given above, and taking into account of all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.