Appeal 6005922

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension to a semi detached house at [site address] , Penketh, Warrington [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/01533/FULH, 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 approved plans: Site Location Plan and 1297/GDP/PL1 – [name].

Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, the external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall be as they are set out on the application form.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Notwithstanding the description of development, which is taken from the application form, the proposed plans show single storey front and rear extensions. The Council assessed the proposal on this basis, and I find no reason to disagree with their acceptance of these elements. My recommendation therefore focuses on the two storey extensions and their effect on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) highway safety with specific regard to parking provision.

The appeal relates to a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a red brick exterior. It contrasts with the adjacent property at Number [address] (No. 49), which features a two storey side extension and a white rendered front elevation. The street scene is predominantly characterised by pairs of semi-detached, hipped roof dwellings, with shared features of two storey front bay windows and adjoining chimney stacks. These properties are set well back from the highway, resulting in a spacious suburban streetscape. Buildings are interspersed with a regular rhythm of gaps. However, few of these have been narrowed due to two storey side additions, which can be seen at No. 49 and at Number [address] (No. 45).

The proposal would have a narrow width, with a corresponding hipped roof set below the main ridgeline. It would be recessed at first floor and not project as far forwards as No. 49’s existing side extension. Matching red brick and grey concrete roof tiles would also be used, with the new window’s placement and proportions to complement the original openings. The proposal would therefore appear as a clearly subordinate and cohesive addition and would comply with the design guidance set out under section 2.1.2 of the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2021 (SPD).

Given the differing forms and materials, it would also contrast distinctly from the white rendered side extension at No. 49. When viewed together, the two extensions would appear as separate and distinguishable elements, thereby avoiding a terracing effect. Whilst the proposal would be built very close to the side boundary, No. 49’s existing side gap would still ensure a visual separation between the two dwellings. Moreover, the proposal would create a balanced symmetry with the adjoining dwelling at No. 45, which features a similar two storey side extension.

The proposed side extension would fail to provide a one metre separation at first floor to the side boundary, as outlined under section 2.6.2 of the SPD. However, the SPD is not policy, and the proposal would, amongst others, comply through having a matching roof pitch and shape set below the main ridgeline, a setback from the main front elevation, and a width no greater than 50% of the original house’s width. Whilst side access would be removed, the front garden is sufficiently deep for any bin storage and would be consistent with neighbouring properties, who already store bins in this area. The proposed storeroom could also accommodate any secure bicycle storage.

For these reasons, the proposed extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would not conflict with Policy DC6 of the Warrington Local Plan 2023 (LP). This policy seeks to ensure good design is at the core of all development proposals, amongst other things.

The appeal site currently benefits from a paved driveway to the front allowing for off-street parking and is accessed via a dropped kerb. [address] is a long cul-de-sac that has no on-street parking restrictions. The majority of dwellings along the street also have their own off-street parking provision.

Section 2.3 of the SPD specifies that a four bedroom dwelling should provide three parking spaces. The appeal site currently provides off-street parking for one vehicle. The proposed plan indicates that three parking spaces would be created within the front garden following resurfacing works. However, the Council’s Transport Development Control section advises that accommodating three standard spaces would be difficult. This was evident on my site visit, as even with resurfacing, the front garden would realistically allow for only two vehicles side by side, considering the manoeuvring and access space required.

Therefore, the proposal would theoretically fall short of the parking standards by one space, with this additional vehicle likely to be displaced onto the highway. However, [address] is unrestricted and has ample space for on-street parking. Although reflecting a snapshot in time, most driveways were unoccupied at the time of my site visit, indicating available capacity for any returning cars to park both off and on the street. Whilst partial pavement parking is not ideal, the site is within a residential cul-de-sac with good visibility, and such parking would not result in severe highway harm, should this occur. In the absence of any compelling evidence that the proposal would result in additional parking stress and for the above reasons, the displacement of one vehicle onto the road would not, in itself, cause harm to the free flow of traffic or unacceptably compromise highway safety or accessibility.

Therefore, the proposal would comply with Policy ENV8 of the LP which requires, amongst other things, development proposals to consider the effect and timing of traffic movement to, from and within the site including impacts on highway safety.

To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and specify the approved plan. Although the approved plan indicates the use of matching materials, the application form specifies different finishes for the doors and windows. A condition is therefore necessary to secure these details, which would be acceptable in terms of appearance.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed given it would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is thus granted, subject to the conditions set out above.