Appeal 6003281

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey and single-storey rear and side extension with raised patio to rear at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0270, 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 drawings: Location Plan, Site Plan, Existing and [name] - Drawing no. 12NR/PL/01/C); and Existing and [name] - Drawing no. 12NR/PL/02/C.

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling or as specified on the planning application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

The appeal property at [site address] is a two‐storey semi‐detached dwelling of brick and render under a hipped slate roof, located within the built‐up area of [site address] . The surrounding street displays a mix of architectural styles, roof forms and plot widths, with no single prevailing character. The spacing between dwellings is a positive feature of the street, occasionally revealing distant views. The neighbouring property at [address] is a detached house, which has a slightly wider gap between it and No 12 when compared with other gaps between homes along the road.

The main parties provided two difference figures regarding the percentage increase in the built footprint of the dwelling. However, neither the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2005), nor the [name] Planning Document (2018) collectively referred to as “the SPDs”, set quantitative thresholds for assessing domestic extensions. Instead, both SPDs require a qualitative judgment focused on size, scale, massing and the need for extensions to remain subordinate to the host dwelling.

The submitted drawings show that the two‐storey element is set back by 5.7 metres from the principal elevation and that the ridge height is lowered by 0.55 metres. These physical offsets are not insignificant and consistent with guidance in both SPDs. This creates a clear hierarchy so that the extension reads as a subordinate addition particularly when viewed straight on. The hipped roof form, use of slate tiles, render and similar fenestration reinforce visual continuity with the existing semi‐detached pair. Importantly, a perceptible gap would remain between the extended dwelling and No 10. This gap would be comparable to the pattern of separation found elsewhere along [address].

The extension would introduce additional roof junctions beyond the simple hipped form of the existing dwelling and it would result in increased complexity. However, the principal roof mass would remain clearly legible due to the substantial setback. The alignment of the ridges and consistency of the roof pitches ensure that the extension reads as an orderly sequence of subordinate roof slopes rather than a single bulky form. Furthermore, while the roof plan appears intricate when viewed in isolation from above, from road level, only fragments of the intersecting roofs would be visible at any one time, with the stepped arrangement and changes in plane preventing the eye from reading the full geometry simultaneously. As a result, the simplicity of the host dwelling’s main hipped roof would remain the dominant feature.

That being said, I recognise the Council’s concern regarding the wrap‐around nature of the extension, and the designed and intended gaps and symmetry are important. However, although the dwelling would appear somewhat deeper from certain oblique viewpoints, any reduction in side spacing would be limited and largely obscured by the existing pattern of neighbouring development. I am not of the view that this would be perceived as visually intrusive. In this case the combination of a very deep setback, reduced ridge height and variations in roof planes and relationship with neighbouring dwellings and position relative to the road prevents the development from appearing as a single, bulky mass. The particular circumstances of the development mean it does not set a precedent, as each application must be considered on its own individual merits and the surrounding context.

The proposed single‐storey extensions would not harm the character of the existing dwelling and remains in keeping with the surrounding area. The raised rear patio is also modest and, due to its position, would not affect the character of the property or its surroundings. As such, there is considered to be sufficient screening to ensure the raised patio, and alterations at the rear would not result in visual harm or harm neighbouring living conditions.

While the extensions would create a larger and more noticeable building than at present, in the context of the mixed vernacular the proposal would not appear atypical, visually disruptive or incongruous. The resulting dwelling would not appear so dominant, bulky or complex as to give rise to significant harm that warrants withholding planning permission. For the reasons set out above, whilst the proposal involves substantial additions, the numerical footprint increase, even if the Council’s figures are correct, do not, demonstrate harm or conflict with policy, because the overall form, hierarchy and character of the host dwelling remain intact and it would not amount to harmful overdevelopment of the host dwelling or site.

I conclude the proposal would therefore have an acceptable effect on both the host property and the character and appearance of the area. Consequently the proposal would not conflict with Policy EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan, adopted

This seeks well‐designed development that respects scale, form, and local character. I also find the proposal to be compatible with the SPDs which emphasises subordination, coherent massing and roof forms that integrate with the host building. For the same reasons, the proposal would also not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework.

In addition to the commencement condition, I am attaching a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. To protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling, I am attaching a condition requiring materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building or as specified on the application form, as these would be suitable for the mixed character and appearance of the area.

I conclude the proposed development would accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal is allowed.