Appeal 6004234

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the single storey side extension.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey rear extension with roof lantern; and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension with roof lantern at [site address] in accordance with application Ref: A/25/099636/HH and the following conditions:

The single storey rear extension shall take place no later than three (3) years from the date of this decision;

The single storey rear extension shall be undertaken in accordance with approved plans: • ‘Elevations,’ [name]: 847/23A; [name] 2025; • ‘[name]: 847/22A; [name] 2025; • ‘Ground Floor Plan,’ [name]: 847/21A; [name] 2025

The single storey rear extension shall be constructed of materials that match the existing dwelling in terms of colour, material, size and texture.

I have taken the description of the development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this more accurately describes the individual elements requiring planning consent.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the existing building and the character and appearance of the locality. Appeal Decision: 6004234

The appeal site is part of a speculative housing estate which appears to date from the mid-late twentieth century. Dwellings along [address] towards the [address] end are two storey semi-detached and detached dwellings, whereas the appeal site and further along [address] are single storey bungalows, some of which have accommodation in the roof space. Dwellings along [address] maintain a homogenous, replicative and functional design with simple pitched roof fronting the street and of brick construction with small front boundary walls. The gaps in between and around dwellings due to the setback from the street and side boundaries enables a visual break between the dwellings where the tops of trees to the rear can be seen which adds a positive vegetated element to the character and appearance of the area. Unfortunately, many of the front gardens have been hardscaped to allow for vehicular parking which is a negative aspect of the character, however open front gardens and the dominance of gaps, vegetation and spaces in and around buildings assists in reinforcing the positive qualities of the locality.

In undertaking extensions and alterations to existing dwellings, the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (DPD)1 Policy JP-P1 is a design led policy that seeks development achieve a number of design principles such as respecting the surrounding character and identity of a locality, in terms of design, siting, scale amongst others. Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (LPCS) saved policy CP10 is also a design led policy that seeks developments adhere to a number of criteria such as integrating with surroundings, respects the character and identity of the borough and its locality, amongst others. These policies are also supported by the Council's Supplementary Planning Document for [name] (SPD). The SPD gives further guidance around the considerations for designing residential extensions such as maintaining proportionality and subservience to host dwellings.

Given the positive influence towards character and appearance of visual gaps in between dwellings, the proposed extension would be equal in height and in-line with the front façade and would fill much of the gap between the appeal dwelling and the side boundary, removing a positive influence of the visual gap and giving an almost complete wall of built form from the appeal dwelling to the boundary. [name] appreciate explanations from the Appellant with regards to the appeal building having a different ridge height and positioning to surrounding buildings to avoid what the Council terms a ‘terracing effect;’ to me this means the terracing is as a result of visual massing of buildings and loss of gaps rather than a traditional terrace where all of the buildings are the same. Put another way, it is not the visual appearance of buildings looking the same (a terrace), but the resultant massing and built form and how this reflects the character and appearance of the location.

Additionally, elements like the elongated ridge and the lack of inset of the front facade and erosion of side setback also cause detriment to the design of the existing building, causing an increased visual bulk and form that would cause significant detriment to the character and appearance of the host building and the greater locality.

In conclusion of this matter, the resultant design, and removal of positive aspects such as the visual gap between the dwelling would be detrimental to the character 1 [name], Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan. Appeal Decision: 6004234 of the host building and the character and appearance of the locality, and would be unlike anything in the surrounding locality. As such the proposal would be made contrary to DPD Policy JP-P1 and LPCS Policy CP10 as described previously.

For these reasons, and having considered all matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted insofar as it relates to elements described in Paragraph 2 above, subject to the conditions as detailed in this letter.

As the rear extension is both physically and functionally severable, I consider a split decision would be a logical outcome. The Council in their [name] detailed an assessment of the rear extension which involves a small extension which would then form a new building that has a similar footprint of an existing store. I have no reason to dispute the decision of the Council with regards to this extension which is considered appropriate and in accordance with the Development Plan.

I refer to the suggested conditions specified by the Council in their Statement of Case, if the appeal was to be allowed and have considered them in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Suggested conditions 1 and 2 are standard conditions which set the standard time limit and approved plans which are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Suggested condition 3 is a condition requiring the scheme utilise matching materials as described in the application documents and to the existing dwelling. This is considered necessary to ensure that the appearance of the extensions are compatible with the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the locality.