Appeal 3374779

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear dormer, extension of the existing side dormer and front canopy along with cladding to front and rear elevations at [site address] , Tottington, Bury [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 72186, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 129BUR 100 (Location plan); 129BUR 101 (Block plan); 129BUR 107 (Proposed site and roof plan); 129BUR 108 (Proposed ground floor plan); 129BUR 109 (Proposed first floor plan); 129BUR 110 (Proposed elevations sheet 1); and 129BUR 111 (Proposed elevations sheet 2).

The description of development on the application form does not include the extension to the side dormer. This is clearly shown on the plans before me and the appellant has acknowledged this in their appeal submission. Therefore, in my decision, I have used the Council’s description from the decision notice as it more accurately describes the proposed development. I am satisfied that the cases of the main parties would not be prejudiced by using this description.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property relates to a detached dwelling situated within a large corner plot fronting [address], with access off [address]. The dwelling is set back from the highway with the frontage defined by a stone wall and hedgerow, and the side boundary along [address] by a combination of wall, fence, and gated access. The building is of a varied form, comprising both single and 2‐storey elements that respond to a change in land levels. Its external appearance is characterised by white rendered walls beneath a grey tiled roof, punctuated by dormer windows of differing styles, including a distinct curved dormer at the front which gives the property a unique appearance. The immediate locality is predominantly residential in character, with dwellings of mixed age and architectural style, typically finished in stone, render, or brick. This varied built form and palette of materials contributes to the diverse context in which the appeal site is located.

The proposal would introduce zinc cladding to the property, including to a significant proportion of the front wall, the curved dormer and a new porch. At the rear of the property, the roof would be extended with a large flat roofed dormer across much of the rear elevation, resulting in a 2-storey elevation that would also be clad in zinc panels.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 6 (SPD) provides guidance in respect of alterations and extensions to residential properties. It sets out that extensions will not normally be permitted unless they achieve a high standard of design and complement the original building by reflecting its design, massing, scale and finishing materials and do not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of neighbouring properties and general street scene.

Whilst the appeal property and other dwellings in the vicinity of the site are not finished in similar materials to those proposed, the zinc cladding would complement the existing building which already contains various details in a grey colour, including the roof, windows and doors and the detailing to the front dormer window. Much of the cladding will be largely screened from public viewpoints due to the set back from the highway and the existing boundary treatments, and areas of render would be retained. In combination, these factors mean the alterations will have a subtle and sympathetic impact. The expansive roof slope would remain the most dominant part of the building within the street scene.

In respect of the rear extension, in keeping with its secondary status, this would be mostly screened due to existing boundaries, vegetation and the neighbouring property to the rear. Its design, with a sloping tiled roof facing [address] would minimise views of the cladding to the rear. Whilst its clean lines reflect a more modern approach, the design of the appeal property is already unique within its immediate context, and such alterations would complement its form and add interest. As such, it would achieve a high standard of design in line with the SPD guidance.

Furthermore, due to the varied style and age of properties close to the site, the proposal would continue to provide an interesting architectural contrast, thereby avoiding harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area.

I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property or the surrounding area. It would therefore not conflict with saved Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan (1997) which seeks to ensure that extensions and alterations are considered with regard to the design and appearance of the proposal and the character of the property and surrounding area.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. The Council has indicated agreement to a condition requiring external materials to match those used in the existing building. However, the plans clearly show some materials that are different from those existing, and therefore this would not be reasonable or relate to the development proposed. The Council has not requested that details be provided of the zinc cladding and, as this and the relatively small area of tiled roof are detailed on the approved plans, I do not consider a condition to be necessary in this instance.

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