Appeal 3335597

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been updated since the parties’ appeal submissions have been made. However, as the revisions do not affect the matters under consideration in this appeal, it was not considered necessary to seek further comment.

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

The appeal site comprises a previously extended two-storey semi-detached house of brick construction situated on a corner plot at the crossroad junction of [address] and [address]. The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised predominantly by detached and semi-detached dwellings of similar design. At the crossroads of [address] and [address], none of the four corner properties have two storey extensions at their side elevation to the road. This includes the northern section of [address] between [address] and [address]. This contributes to the sense of spaciousness and maintains the general building line at two storey level on both roads notwithstanding the single storey extensions in place.

The appeal proposal would enable a first-floor extension above the existing extension at the roadside boundary with [address]. I find that the proposal would be out of keeping with the spacious character of the area as it would disrupt the general building line at the second storey level at a corner plot at the crossroads. It would appear over dominant and incongruous in the street-scene, eroding the sense of spaciousness. Although the proposal has been designed to be in keeping with the design of the host building and subservient to it, I find that this does not overcome the fundamental concerns with scale, massing and proximity to the side boundary in its context.

My attention has been drawn to examples of approved two storey side extensions at corner plots in the wider area1 and an appeal decision.2 Although within the wider area of the appeal proposal, the approved applications and appeal decision each differ from the appeal proposal in their context and physical characteristics. For example, the road context, such as a cranked alignment or T-junction arrangement as opposed to a crossroads; road widths; position of trees and vegetation; larger distance over two metres between the extension and side boundary; distance less forward of the building line; or the relationship with other existing development in the vicinity.

I therefore find that the other examples of approved two storey extensions are sufficiently different to the appeal proposal that they are not precedents. As such, they are of limited weight in my decision.

My attention has also been drawn to two refused applications for two-storey side extensions3. One of these decisions is the most proximate to the appeal site of the examples. Nevertheless, I have given limited weight to the decisions which pre date the current Trafford Local Plan: [name] (January 2012) (LP) and the Trafford Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document 4 – A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations (February 2012) (SPD4). Whilst the aims of the former policies are likely to have been similar in terms of assessing impacts on character and appearance, the weight that can be attributed to those decisions is therefore limited.

Overall, the existence of other two storey extensions on corner plots in the wider area does not outweigh the identified harm to the spacious character of the immediate street scene caused by the appeal proposal.

For the above reasons I find that the proposal harms the street scene and character of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy L7 of the LP, which requires development to be appropriate in its context, and enhance the street scene or character of the area by appropriately addressing scale and massing.

The proposal would provide approximately two metres separation distance from the side boundary, in line with SPD4. However, SPD4 also states that the distance may need to be increased when considering two storey extensions on corner plots where there is an identifiable building line, as is the case here. The SPD also advocates single storey side extensions at corner plots rather than two-storey. The proposal therefore conflicts with SPD4.

The Framework paragraph 139 is engaged which states that development that is not well designed, particularly where it fails to reflect local design guides, should be refused. 1 105 [name], [name]/69728, dated February 2010; 207 [name], [name]/68177, dated December 2007; 92 [name], [name] 80679/HHA/2013, dated July 2013; 7 [name], [name] 76862/HHA/2011, dated May 2014; 19 [name] 98291/HHA/19, dated February 2020; 139 [name], [name] 106875/HHA/22, dated June 2022 2 [name]/Q4245/A/09/2115534, dated 3 February 2010 3 163 [name] 2005 ; 54 [name] 2005

For the above reasons I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. The appeal should be dismissed.