Appeal 3339725

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it is a fuller description than the description provided in the planning application form.

The main issues in this case are: • the effect of the proposed upward extension and two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and streetscene. • the effect of the two-storey side extension on the living conditions of No.[address], with regards privacy.

No. [site address] (No.89) is a modest, detached bungalow situated on the north side of [address] on the corner with [address].

I observed on my site visit that [address] is characterised by a mix of bungalows and two-storey semi-detached dwellings of varied designs. The roof forms of dwelling are relatively traditional comprising pitch, facing gables, hipped or pyramid roof forms (or a mixture of these) which typically relate well in scale and proportions to their host.

The guidance in the Council’s Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) is that any extension or alteration to a property should respect the form, shape, symmetry and proportions of the existing dwelling and complement the character of the surrounding area. In this case, the roof of the upward extension has been designed with a steep hip (around 45 degrees) which meets a ‘hidden’ flat roof. [name] acknowledge that the design seeks to minimise the overall ridge height of the dwelling to around 8.5m, it results in significant bulk and massing to the roof that unbalances the composition of the dwelling, appearing ‘top heavy.’

I saw on site that the dwelling opposite the appeal site (on the corner of [address] and [name]) has a flat roof side extension, but I have no information before me regarding the context in which this was found acceptable, nor do I find it positively contributes to the streetscene. The bulk and massing and flat expanse of the proposed roof would appear overly prominent and out of character with the prevailing roof forms, which on the north side of this part of [address] comprises facing gables. I note that a proposed upwards extension to No.89, designed by the same architect as the appeal proposal, was granted planning permission in 2021 (DC/076332). In contrast to the proposal now before me, that upward extension included a traditional pitched roof with gable facing [address], so sympathetic to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

On both the front and rear, a dormer window is proposed, positioned broadly centrally within the roofslope. The dormers have a pitch roof design set around 0.15m lower than the ridge of the proposed flat roof. Although on the front elevation it would sit comfortably within the proposed roofslope, the proposed dormer would be around 2.2m wide and 2.0m high projecting outwards by around 2.3m, larger that any of the ground and first floor windows. It would therefore further unbalance the composition of the dwelling and would add to the bulk and massing of the roof form, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the streetscene.

A two-storey extension is proposed which would project around 3.0m from the flank elevation of No.[address], along the full depth of the dwelling. The extension has been designed with a two-storey, relatively narrow gable feature which would project around 0.78m from the proposed principal side elevation facing [address]. This would incorporate a second (side) entrance to the dwelling, with a first floor void, and full height glazing to the eaves of the pitched roof. This would present a very prominent and unduly grand frontage, which would starkly contrast with the modest semi-detached dwellings and bungalows which characterise [address].

I therefore conclude on the first main issue that the proposed roof form, front dormer and two-storey side extension would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and streetscene. Consequently, in addition to the conflict with the SPD, the proposals would conflict with Policy SIE-1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011) (CS) and saved Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) which together require development (including residential extensions) to have regard to the site context in relation to the surrounding buildings, to complement the existing dwelling in terms of design, scale and to not adversely affect the character of the streetscene. It would further conflict with the principles of good design in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

No.89 is currently offset from its boundary with [address] by around 6.3m. I observed on my site visit that No.[address] (No.91), a detached bungalow on the opposite corner of [address], is offset from its boundary by a similar distance to No.91. The proposed two-storey side extension would project a maximum of around 3.[address], reducing this separation distance, and would include two first floor windows (to a bedroom and dressing room to the master bedroom) facing the road.

There is disagreement between the parties as to whether, or not, the resulting separation distance would meet the standard 21m separation distance between habitable room windows on the public or street side of dwellings, as set out at paragraph 3.2.1 of the SPD. However, whilst these windows would directly face No.91, I was satisfied on site that there would remain a good level of separation (over the road) and I am not persuaded that there would be direct overlooking from the proposed first floor windows to the ground floor windows on the side elevation of No.91.

I therefore conclude on the second main issue that the proposals would not result in overlooking or loss of privacy, such that it would cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbours. In this regard, there would be no conflict with CS Policy SIE-1 or saved UPD Policy CDH1.8 in so far as they require development, including residential extensions, to maintain satisfactory privacy and amenity for neighbouring residents. There would also be no conflict with the guidance at paragraph 135 of the Framework that development create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

[name] have found no harm to the living conditions of neighbours, for the reasons given, I have concluded that the proposals would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and streetscene. The appeal is, therefore, duly dismissed