Appeal 3369963

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is effect of the proposed development upon the open countryside.

The appellant refers to a ‘fallback position’ in relation to a Certificate of lawfulness for two side extensions1. This has been taken into account in my decision.

[site address] ([address]) is a detached rural dwelling in a rural location, set within a large plot surrounded by open agricultural land and other dwellings scattered along [site address] . The proposal would add a 4.5m deep flat-roofed extension to the rear of the recently extended Cottage. Policy PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (2017) (CELPS) tightly controls all development in the open countryside but permits extensions to dwellings that are cumulatively ‘not disproportionate to the original dwelling’. The dwelling proposed to be extended is broadly double the size of the original Cottage2 following a grant of permission in 20133.

Policy RUR11 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 (SADPD) suggests calculations of size increases should be based on net floor areas, whereas the Council have assessed the proposals on the basis of volume. Irrespective of the basis of the assessment, I have concerns as to accuracy in that the dimensions of the rear extension appearing on the plan 1 Appellant has supplied the Certificate issued (Ref 25/2628/CLPUD) by the Council dated 8 September 2025 2 [address] appears to date from the late nineteenth century 3 13/0946N for a two storey rear extension indicate that the proposed full-width single-storey rear extension would add approximately 30-35m2 in area to the existing building, whereas the Council suggest, improbably, that the single storey flat roofed extension would add a volume of 147m3 to an existing volume of 581m3. Consequently, of themselves, these figures cannot attract much evidential weight. Nevertheless, my observations support an overall conclusion that the likely result of the proposed development would be a house with a floor area between two and three times that of the original4 dwelling, which conflicts significantly with Policy RUR11 of the SADPD, which seeks to limit the size of additions to 50% of the original. Even allowing for the possibility that part of the original dwelling has been demolished5, it is clear that the proposal would conflict with the development plan which, in the identified policies, seeks to limit the impact of development on the open countryside that would arise from cumulative additions to modestly sized rural dwellings.

I have noted the representations as to need for additional living space and noted the appeal referred to6, but the factors in this case are not wholly comparable. It is not the case that the Cottage is deficient in facilities or accommodation; the extension could not be retained within the building’s envelope, nor could the external appearance remain unchanged. Whilst it may be arguable that the appealed proposal would have little visual impact due to its location within the site, the appellant has also brought attention to other extension arrangements, a consideration to which I must also have regard.

The side extensions referred to in the Certificate of Lawfulness would similarly increase the size of the dwelling. Whilst the appellant suggests these extensions are a ‘fallback’ position in favour of the appealed proposal, even if the appealed proposal were acceptable in planning terms, I have nothing before me7 to ensure the certified side extensions can be regarded as an alternative that would not also be implemented if the appeal were allowed. The consequences of allowing the appeal would, therefore, be to risk a greater cumulative impact upon the open countryside in significant conflict with the development plan.

Overall, taking all matters raised into account and as my reasoning explains, the development would conflict with Policies PG6 of CELPS and RUR11 of SADPD, and I therefore conclude that the appeal cannot succeed.