Appeal 3336639

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision turns on the likely effect of the proposed extension works to the house at No. [site address] on the character and appearance of the dwelling and its immediate surroundings.

The appeal concerns a proposal to extend the detached 2 storey house at No. [site address] [site address] . The house stands in a rather prominent spot at the junction with [address]. The open [site address] Park is on the opposite side of [address]. The almost 3.5m wide 2 storey extension would be built on to the south western gable wall together with a 3.05m deep single storey rear extension built to the full width of the extended house.

The Council said the proposed extensions would be dominant additions to the host dwelling. They would have an adverse impact upon the dwelling's character, with a significantly increase of the dwelling’s prominence in the street scene. In their view that would adversely affect the open character of the area, contrary to Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy and the design objectives of the Supplementary Planning Document for [name].

[address] [name] (2019) says an extension should be subordinate to the existing and neighbouring buildings and in character with the surrounding area, (para. 2.5). A house extension should be positioned so it does not dominate the street scene. It should complement the existing dwelling and respect neighbouring properties. The guidance says consideration should be given to the design and siting of either a single storey or two storey extension on a corner plot due to its visual prominence in the built environment. Blank gables will not generally be acceptable. A corner plot extension must not encroach beyond established building lines on either street as it may have an adverse impact on the character of the local area.

I agree with the Council that the extensive additions to the house as proposed at No. [site address] would be on a scale that would produce a materially detrimental effect on the immediate street scene, failing in significant detail to comply with Council guidance on house extensions. I can understand the desire to extend the house, the sizeable gap to the side of the house to [address] suggesting a suitable opportunity. Building the 3.[address] would add another small room width to the house. However, the 2 storey side extension would retain only about a [address]. The over 40% width increase would be a substantially proportionate increase, to a sympathetic design, but which would not be set back nor would have a lower ridge than that of the existing house. That would be a variance to the [name] which says the form and scale of an extension should be subordinate to the existing and neighbouring buildings and in character with the surrounding area.

Particularly as the 2 storey side extension would not be a subordinate to the existing house at No. [site address] , there would be an undue increase of its prominence in the immediate street scene, further contrasting with the open nature of the park land opposite. That would be exacerbated somewhat by the undesirable large blank south-western facing side wall of the extended house.

The single storey rear extension is less contentious. However, whilst replacing a substantial glazed conservatory, the large flat roofed rear extension would be built to the full width of the extended house to a height of over 3m. As the Council said, it would be amply visible at and close to the junction of [site address] and [address], occupying a large part of the No. [site address] plot. The large single storey extension would add to the excess of the more prominent 2 storey extension project, adding to its unjustified prominence in the street scene.

I conclude that the appeal should fail.