Appeal 6002849

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development used in the banner header above is taken from the planning application form. Given that the proposed extensions would be located on the two flank walls of this rectangular dwelling, the description used in the application form is wrong. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the following description which accurately describes the proposal as ‘single storey side extensions to both sides of the dwelling’.

The local planning authority consider that the southern side extension, which has already been built, to be acceptable in planning terms. I have no reason to disagree with that assessment.

Therefore, the focus of this appeal is the proposed single storey extension to the front (northern) elevation of the property at [site address] to form a sunroom. Reference to ‘proposed development’ in this decision notice relates specifically to this element.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular reference to outlook; and • the appellants personal circumstances and need for a sunroom.

The appeal property forms the corner plot on the junction of [address] and [address]. No.1 is set in a perpendicular alignment to the adjoining bungalow of No.17. The plot is relatively open and is prominent in the street scene, enclosed by a low-level boundary wall and semi-mature shrubbery.

Whilst the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour are both bungalows, the wider character of the area consists predominantly of chalet-style 1970’s semi-detached properties. These are uniformly set back from the public highway behind open gardens and driveways. On both [address] and [address] there is no evidence of encroachment towards the highway through the addition of porches or extensions to original front elevations. This gives a sense of openness and rhythm to the properties when viewed from the street.

Occupying a corner plot the appeal property occupies a highly prominent position in the street scene. The proposed sunroom would result in an increased projection of the northern elevation of the appeal property encroaching towards [address]. The proposed extension would break from the established building line and would appear incongruous to the wider character of the area, particularly when viewed from [address].

[name] would acknowledge that a sunroom would be lightweight in structure, it would still add to the massing of the appeal property and would be out of character with the existing street scene. I do not consider the low-level boundary treatment to provide sufficient screening given the prominent nature of the appeal site.

I would therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the area, specifically the street scene of [address]. This would conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the ‘Places for Everyone’ Greater Manchester Plan which expects development to respect the character and identity of the locality. The proposal is also contrary to Policy OA6 of the [name] and the Council’s SPG on [name] which, amongst other matters, requires new development to respect and enhance existing patterns of development.

The front elevation of No.17 consists of a front door and two windows, the largest of which is the main window serving the occupants living room. It is also this room which is closest to the proposed extension at No.1.

The perpendicular alignment of the properties of No.1 and No.17 result in the existing northern elevation of the appeal property projecting out approximately 3.5m from the front elevation of its neighbour. The proposed extension set level with the northern elevation would seek to extend that projection by a further 3.5m.

The consequence of doubling the extent of built development forward of this elevation would be to significantly increase the degree to which the outlook from the living room of No.17 would be enclosed. The resulting overly dominating effect of the proposed extension in views from the living room of No.17 would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the current occupants.

[name] would acknowledge the lightweight structure of the sunroom, the massing of the proposed extension, combined with the existing footprint of No.1 would not mitigate this harm.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would demonstrably harm the living conditions of the occupants of No.17. This would conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the ‘Places for Everyone’ Greater Manchester Plan which seeks to promote comfortable and inviting indoor and outdoor environments. The proposal also conflicts with both Policy CG4 of the [name] which seeks to protect occupiers amenity and the Council’s SPG on [name] which sets out that extensions should not have an overbearing or over dominant effect on adjoining dwellings.

Decision makers are required by the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act to have due regard to advancing equality of opportunity and to eliminate unlawful discrimination in relation to, amongst others, people with disabilities.

The appellant is disabled and has restricted mobility. The proposed development would create a sunroom at No. [site address] which would allow the occupant additional mobility space for their scooter / wheelchair and provide greater visual access to their garden which would positively impact mental health, isolation and support emotional well-being.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other extensions within the locality of the appeal site which they feel set a precedent for their proposal. During my site visit I took the opportunity to view a number of extensions to corner bungalow plots in the area which involved the creation of sunrooms or conservatories. However, in all cases I noted that any extensions were located on non-street facing elevations nor did they have the same relationship with adjoining dwellings. As a result, they are materially different and do not have the same impact on their surroundings as the

I have found that the proposed sunroom would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the area and demonstrably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.17. I attach significant weight to the resulting conflict with the development plan and the harm that would be caused.

In favour of the appeal, the sunroom would provide additional floorspace for safe mobility. It would provide the appellant visual access to their garden, which would positively impact on mental health, isolation and support emotional well-being. I attach notable weight to these factors.

On balance, I conclude that the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the neighbouring property outweighs the need for the sunroom and its PSED benefits. Material considerations therefore do not indicate that permission should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.