Appeal 3367848

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of first floor extension, alterations to roof shape and elevations including new facing materials, windows and door openings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref. 116184/HHA/25, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

The description of works set out in the heading and decision above is taken from the application form. It accurately reflects the overall proposal.

There is a degree of overlap in the first 2 of the 3 reasons for refusal wherein harm is alleged in respect of various designated and non-designated heritage assets. These can be combined under a single main issue. The appeal site falls within the South Hale Conservation Area (SHCA). There are various listed buildings along Park Road to the rear (south-east) of the site, the closest being at nos 115 (Cintra) and 117 (Broadoaks). The Council also draws attention to 2 non-designated heritage assets, the dwellings at 8 and [address].

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (s72 of the Act) requires that when assessing proposals for new development within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Section 66 (s66 of the Act) requires that special regard shall be paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. The effect of the application on the significance of non-designated heritage assets should also be taken into account.

The main issues are therefore: 1) the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host property and the SHCA, including the significance of 8 and [address] and whether it would preserve the listed buildings, 115 and [address], including their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest they possess; and 2) its effect upon the amenities of the occupiers of [address] and [address] with particular regard to the potential for any undue, unreasonable visual intrusion.

The SHCA covers a sizeable area. It encompasses [address], a leafy residential road. From my site visit and from studying the Council’s SHCA Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Documents SPD5.21 and SPD5.21a, it is the residential character, spacious plots, mature planting and tree-lined streets, substantial properties in a variety of architectural styles including from the Victorian, Edwardian and modern periods and high level of architectural detailing that contribute to the special character and interest of the SHCA as a whole and throughout Character Area B within which the appeal site is situated.

However, SPD5.21 does not identify no. 8a as a positive building in the SHCA. It was originally built in what was part of the rear garden of no. 8 in the 1970s as an unashamedly modern single-storey home with flat and near flat roofs and a mix of buff bricks, tile hanging and white plastic cladding, with an array of glazing (now in PVCu frames) on the principal south-west (garden-facing) elevation. The contrast with the older 2-storey houses nearby is self-evident. The architecture it displays has not dated particularly well nor is it locally distinctive for any reason.

The change of roof shape from shallow mono-pitched roofs to flat roofs towards the front of the property was considered satisfactory by the Council. I have no reason to disagree. The Council was concerned about the 2-storey flat roof at the rear that would emerge from the first floor extension, the proposed materials and the fenestration treatment.

The appeal dwelling is not visible from public vantage points. Moreover, mature vegetation along the site boundaries and access drive substantially limits private views of the dwelling from neighbouring properties, with the obvious exception being the rear-facing first floor windows of the closest property, [address].

The dwelling’s rearmost portion, covered by a long and rather ungainly mono-pitch roof, is already notably higher than the rest of the building. Whilst this portion may only contain a single floor internally, its south-western (garden) elevation in particular has the outward form, proportions and height of a 11⁄2 storey structure. The new first floor bedroom accommodation sought by the appellants would be achieved by raising the highest edge of its existing roof line by only 1.745m. Also, the highest section of the new flat roof that would be created would not extend across the full depth of the building’s rearmost portion. Indeed, the lower section of adjoining flat roof would provide a welcome break in plane that the existing long roof slope currently lacks. I am not convinced that the 2-storey flat roof at the rear would reach a height, mass or bulk as to appear visually intrusive or out of keeping with the building’s wider context within the SHCA or significantly unbalance the property. It would respect the modern style, scale and form of the property. 2

The appellants, correctly in my view, consider “...that the building would benefit from a refresh and a more contemporary aesthetic...”. Supplementary Planning Document 4: A Guide for [address] Extensions & Alterations (SPD4) reminds readers of the Council’s special responsibilities to safeguard the character and appearance of the historic environment and heritage assets. However, it does not rule out a contemporary design or approach.

In broad terms, I find the appellants’ approach to the selection of high-quality modern materials and the fenestration arrangements for this scheme to be architecturally defensible in the context of the site and the modern character of this individual property. In essence, it would achieve a fresh confident identity for the dwelling and a sense of place that contrasts appropriately with its neighbours, while being sufficiently sympathetic to the historic context of the surroundings.

That said, I agree with Council that the chosen colour scheme would, when viewed in the round, produce an overly grey and monotone effect. This would offer a poor appearance. In that regard, I can find no basis for having the existing buff bricks tinted light grey. The buff brickwork is in a good condition and has attractive changes in texture with some colour variation. If the brickwork, where it is shown to be retained, remained as existing, the property would have at least 2 distinctive main colours (light grey for the vertical zinc cladding and buff for the retained areas of brickwork). The long north-east elevation, which is the one that is most visible in private views, would see the most benefit from such a change. The zinc-cladding on the opposite elevation would be well broken up by sections of glazing and by the sharp break in the wall plane where light oak cladding would be introduced.

Noting the appellants’ willingness to work with the Council in the first instance and that otherwise unacceptable development can be made acceptable through the use of conditions, I intend to prevent the tinting of the existing bricks in light grey through the imposition of planning conditions. Final details of the type, colour and texture of all the materials should also be sought through a planning condition.

The significance and setting of both of the adjacent houses that have been identified as non-designated heritage assets (8 and [address]), including the positive contribution that they make to the special interest of the SHCA, is derived largely from how their principal elevations are aligned and viewed in relation to the curvature of [address]. This would be wholly unaffected by the proposed development which would take place on a very secluded site to the rear of those houses. In other respects, put simply, the proposals would not be on such a significant scale or so radically transform the appearance of what is already a dwelling of modern design as to cause any harm to the setting of those 2 non-designated heritage assets. The balanced judgement I make is that those 2 assets would continue to make the same positive contribution to the SHCA.

The closest grade 2 listed buildings are the large detached residential properties at 115 (Cintra) and [address] (Broadoaks) designed by [name] and dating from 1903 and 1907 respectively. I have studied the list entry descriptions of both those listed buildings, which are designated heritage assets.

No. 117 shares only a tiny section of common boundary with the appeal site. This occurs in the north-western corner of no. 117’s rear garden. The property there is positioned a considerable distance away from that corner where there is mature 3 boundary vegetation. From what I saw on site, I was not convinced that there would be any strong intervisibility between the appeal dwelling or the proposed extension and other alterations to it and no. 117. All significant trees are protected given the location within the SHCA. I am satisfied that, based on the information before me and my visit, that the setting of no. 117 would not be detrimentally affected by the proposed development.

No. 115 stands in grounds which exhibit a strong degree of enclosure. Its principal setting is defined by its relationship to Park Road. It shares a more typical rear-to-rear boundary fence with the appeal site. There is a distance of 6.2m from that fence to the rear of the appeal dwelling where the extension is proposed. Moreover, there is an intervening double row of tall mature vegetation (nearly all of which is protected) between the back of the appeal dwelling and the fence. Inside the back garden of no. 115, not too far from the boundary fence, is a large outbuilding with a fairly tall hipped roof. This would roughly line up with the silhouette of the proposed extension. I consider that these factors, added to the modest scale of the extension and its rather muted rear-facing wall of high-quality, light grey, durable zinc cladding, would leave the setting of this listed building unharmed.

I consider overall that the proposed development would exhibit a high, site-specific and sensitive design quality, be sufficiently complementary and sympathetic to the parent building in terms of design, scale and bulk, be respectful of the local context and surroundings, and at the very least, preserve the significance, character and appearance of the SHCA and the setting of nearby listed and unlisted buildings.

I find on the first main issue that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the host property and the SHCA, including the significance of 8 and [address], and leave the nearby listed buildings 115 and [address], including their settings and any features of special architectural or historic interest they possess, unharmed. There would be no material conflict with Policy R1 of the [name] or [name]-P1 and JP-P2 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan. When read together, these policies seek to ensure high quality design in development and to conserve, sustain and enhance Trafford’s historic environment and diverse heritage assets and their settings, including conservation areas and listed buildings. There would be sufficient respect paid to the SPDs and the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it relates to achieving well-designed places and conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Turning to the second main issue, the Council found that the proposal would cause undue, unreasonable visual intrusion for the occupiers of the neighbouring properties at [address] and [address].

SPD4, despite being listed in the relevant reason for refusal, does not really cover the matter of visual intrusion under its guidance on protecting neighbouring amenity. The Council was satisfied that the scheme would not give rise to any potential adverse effects relating to the 3 key areas for amenity as listed in that guidance: overlooking; loss of light; and overbearing. Moreover, the occupiers of the 2 highlighted properties might have raised issues that coincided with the Council’s concerns. As it is, they did not submit any letters of representation in response to the application. 4

The proposed first floor extension would be about 13m away from the garden of [address]. It would be located in the rear corner of the appeal dwelling that is furthest away from the common boundary. In any event, I did not find that the proposed extension would suffer from an incongruous style. Any visual impact it may have would not spoil the reasonable enjoyment of this neighbouring garden.

Many of the observations I made in paragraph 18 above are relevant to this issue for [address]. There is also a separation distance of about 22m between the proposed extension and the rear elevation of this neighbouring property. As before, I did not find that the proposed extension would suffer from an incongruous style within its context. Any visual impact it may have would not spoil the reasonable enjoyment of the rear-facing rooms, main patio or garden area of [address].

I find on the second main issue that the proposal would not prejudice the amenities of the occupiers of [address] and [address] with particular regard to the potential for any undue, unreasonable visual intrusion. It would therefore comply with Policy L7 of the [name] and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan. There would be respect for the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it relates to achieving well-designed places.

The Council has recommended 5 conditions in its questionnaire in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the advice on conditions in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit condition for commencement, a condition is imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, both for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition to secure samples or full details of the materials to be used externally is necessary in the interests of conserving and enhancing the historic environment. For similar reasons, I have included sentences in both of those second and third conditions preventing the tinting of the existing bricks in light grey in accordance with my observations in paragraphs 13 and 14 above.

The Council has suggested conditions to control the treatment of 2 windows and to prevent additional specific works that might otherwise amount to permitted development. These are necessary in the interests of protecting residential amenities and of conserving and enhancing the historic environment respectively.

Given my findings on the main issues and as I consider the proposal to be acceptable on its own merits, I have not found it necessary to weigh up the representations about the fallback position on permitted development rights or the replacement dwellings on Park Drive. For the reasons given and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1155.000 – Location & Block Plan; 1155.001 – Existing Floor Plan; 1155.002 – Existing Roof Plan; 1156.003 – [name] & [name]; 1156.004 – [name] & [name]; 1155.005 [name] – Proposed Ground Floor Plan; 1155.006 [name] – [name] and Roof Plan; 1156.007 [name] – [name] & [name]; 1156.008 [name] – [name] & [name]; and 1155.009 – Tree Protection Plan & [name], except in respect of the tinting of the existing bricks light grey, shown as [name] type number 4 on approved plans 1156.007 [name] – [name] & [name] and 1156.008 [name] – [name] & [name].

Notwithstanding condition 2 above and any description of materials in the application, no works shall commence, other than internal alterations, until samples and/or full specifications of all the materials to be used externally on the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials and provide for the existing bricks, where they are shown to be kept, to remain buff coloured and for any new minor infill areas of brickwork to match. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows in the first floor on the north-east and south-east elevations facing [address] and [address] respectively have been fitted with, up to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level, non-opening lights and textured glass with an obscuration level of not less than Level 3 on the [name] scale (or equivalent) and once installed those windows shall be retained as such thereafter.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no external cladding, painting and rendering to bricks shall be carried out to the dwelling, no windows shall be added to the dwelling and no extensions shall be carried out to the dwelling, other than as expressly authorised by this permission, unless planning permission for such development has first been granted by the local planning authority. End of schedule 6