Appeal 3369004

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council raised no concern regarding the proposed single storey rear extension. I find no reason to disagree with their conclusions thereon. My recommendation therefore focusses on the proposed two storey front and side extensions. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The surrounding area is residential and features a diverse mix of housing types. Within this variety, properties are typically organised into small clusters sharing the same architecture and style. The appeal site forms part of a uniform row of four two storey, link detached dwellings. The repetition of these building forms, with equal gaps and duplicate single storey side and front structures, establishes a distinctive rhythm. They are sited in a staggered formation, with the appeal building located at the end closest to the highway. This architectural arrangement is replicated by a corresponding row of four dwellings, directly opposite on [address]. Together, these two groups present as a collective identity, which establishes a strong coherence to the street scene, that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed front and side extensions would introduce a prominent two storey gabled structure to the appeal property, with a ridge aligning with the main roof. Due to its forward and side projection, it would subsume the original dwelling and result in a dominant and disproportionate form. Whilst the proposal would sit within the footprint of the existing single storey side and rear elements, the substantial increase in bulk and height would be out of scale with the original dwelling. This would disrupt the original consistency of the cohesive link-detached houses, undermining their distinctive building rhythm. The appellant has cited examples of nearby dwellings with front and side structures similar to the proposal, which I saw on my site visit. However, these were either original features or related to a site context not sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme.

For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2024; Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy 2013; the [name] Planning Document 2019; and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these policies and guidance seek to ensure developments are of a high quality design, which respect the character and identity of the existing building and the locality.

The matter of the proposal’s effect on living conditions in terms of overlooking was not a contentious one in the appeal. Given the sufficient distances between neighbouring properties, I do not disagree with the Council’s findings in this regard. The Council’s alleged lack of suggestions to make the appeal scheme acceptable and the appellant’s request for consideration of a revised scheme are matters that should be taken up outside of the appeal process. They are not for me to resolve here.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.