Appeal 3351636

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for site levelling to the rear for the installation of a basement and external staircase together with a two storey front and rear extension with adjoining balcony and loft conversion at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 18439/24, subject to the following conditions: - i. The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. ii. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following approved plans: references 001(location plan); 004 (proposed site section); 005 (cross section); 008 (proposed site plan); 009 (proposed basement and ground floor plan); 010 (proposed 1st and 2nd floor plans); 011 (proposed roof plan); 012 (setting out plan); 013 (proposed front elevation); 014 and 015 (proposed side elevations) and 016 (proposed rear elevation) iii. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The appellant describes the proposed development as for extensions and general re-modelling of the existing property. I have used the local authority’s description (LPA) in the banner heading and in the decision as it more fully describes the proposed development.

On 30 July 2024 the Government began consultations upon reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework) which closed on 24 September 2024. The reforms are draft and may be subject to change and therefore I afford the draft changes only limited weight in the decision-making process. As there are no proposed reforms which are pertinent to the main issues in this appeal, it has not been necessary for me to consult the main parties upon it.

The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA is characterised as a whole by its mature woodland and trees within which is set a suburban development of low density, mainly detached dwellings dating from the mid nineteenth century onwards. More recent development, of which the appeal property is one, are designed around various culs-de-sac.

The environment of the CA around the appeal property retains the characteristics of this low-density development with brick detached dwellings within a setting of mature trees.

The proposed development would alter the appearance of the dwelling by the inclusion of, amongst other things, two front, double pitched gables and two dormers. However, the footprint of the dwelling within its curtilage would remain approximately the same and it would continue to be a two storey property. The proposed external materials would match those of the existing dwelling and with other properties around it.

I do not find that the proposed development would result in a disproportionate or overly dominant dwelling in terms of its size or design in relation to the original dwelling or the adjoining dwellings, nor do I find the amount of glass that is proposed, to be excessive or inappropriate in design terms.

Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and as such, would accord with policy OA4 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011), policies JP-P1 and JP-P2 of the Places For Everyone Joint Development Plan Document For Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan (2024), the Council’s General Design Principles Supplementary Document and chapter 12 of the Framework, all of which require development to respect and protect the character and identity of the area, including the historic environment.

I have imposed the standard time condition and a condition to ensure the development is in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the CA, and for the avoidance of doubt, it is necessary to impose a condition relating to the use of external building materials.

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