Appeal 6005953

The appeal is dismissed.

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 scheme. The main issues in regard to which are its effect on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 5 (No 5) Ashfield with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal building is a semi-detached dwelling located on a corner plot at the entrance of a cul-de-sac. A set of bungalows face the side elevation. The appeal building fronts the main section of Ashfield. The side elevation of the building is set back from the highway by virtue of its driveway and some planting. Surrounding dwellings are a mix of well-spaced bungalows with largely open front gardens. The wider estate has similar attributes. This garners a strong sense of spaciousness which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The projection of the extension towards the highway would narrow the gap between buildings at the entrance to the cul-de-sac. As a result, the scheme would form a cramped feel to the street scene, unacceptably reducing the quality of the area’s spaciousness. The exposed corner plot position of the appeal dwelling would exacerbate the visual effect of the extension. A gap would remain, but it would be insufficient for the above reasons.

The scheme would be set down from the ridge and set back from the front which would allow it to be read as a subservient and appropriately scaled addition to its host. Positive though this would be, it would not make the harm I have found acceptable. I also remain to be convinced the proposals would be the sole means of meeting the increased internal space requirements of the incumbent family. These matters therefore carry only limited weight. With this and the above in mind, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy C1 and H10 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The distance between the new side wall of the extension and No 5 would fall below that set out by the Tameside Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). [name] 5 being a bungalow, it would have two windows facing the extension and the garden space directly affected is the street facing elevation. Which is currently also encumbered by extensive planting. There is similar greenery to the side road facing boundary of the appeal building and the intervening width of the cul-de-sac access road. To my mind, these would combine to make the overall experience of the extended building acceptable, in that any reduction in light or quality of outlook would be marginal and not materially different to the existing situation.

Notwithstanding technical conflict with the SPD, this would not translate to harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5. Resultantly, the proposal would comply with Policy JP-P1 Places for Everyone 2024, Policies H10(a) and C1 of the UDP and the Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected.

The appellant’s examples are not sufficiently similar to the appeal scheme in terms of their height, position, design or location. Moreover, I have no information on the prevailing policies or guidance at the time of their approval if they have any. I am not minded to recommend allowing the appeal in their light.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan on the first main issue. The lack of harm identified on the second would not weigh in favour. It would be neutral. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.