Appeal 6006299

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey front extension to the existing dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0492, 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 drawing nos: • WD2.1 – Location Plan • WD2.2 - Proposed Site Plan • WD3.2 – [name] • WD5.3 – [name] • WD5.4 – [name]

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those as shown on the approved plans.

For the purposes of clarity, I have amended the description of development used in my decision from that set out in the banner heading above, which has been taken from the planning application form.

The planning officer’s report refers to the proposed extension as having a hipped roof. The plans confirm it is a gable and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscene.

[address] is a long sweeping street within a residential estate, which is characterised by post-war housing of different types within an overall cohesive architectural approach. The section of [address] including and around the appeal property consists of two-storey semi-detached houses. On the opposite side of the road sits a run of semi-detached chalet-style properties, and where the road sweeps into a curve and rises up topographically, the main house type is detached from No 54 onwards. The continuity of appearance within the streetscene is aided by the blend of materials, which is predominantly buff-coloured bricks and cladding, white/cream render and grey tiles. This combination of materials is evident throughout the streetscene in the vicinity of the appeal site, albeit used in different compositions on individual properties.

The form of each original housing type is evident and they would have presented as uniform in appearance when first built. Over time, a variety of extensions and alterations have appeared on multiple properties. The original character of the streetscene that is formed by more fundamental components of built form, such as the spaciousness created by generous front gardens with houses set back from the highway, is still evident and continues to contribute positively to its appearance. These elements would not be undermined by the proposed development.

Aspects of the character and appearance that rely on smaller, more intricate details, such as porch design, elevational detail and domestic extensions, have been subject to significantly more change and variation, and this must also be acknowledged as a contributing factor in establishing the existing character.

Porches projecting from the front elevations appear to be an original feature of the detached and the semi-detached house types (excluding the chalet-style properties). Some porches are unaltered with their original flat roofs and some display a variety of changes. Flat roof garages projecting forward from the front elevations are also widely evident within the streetscene. As a result, much variation is apparent across the building forms that create the character of [address].

The design of the proposed extension reflects the design and character of the original house, replicating similar roof pitch angles and materials, with the addition of render. The proposed extension would be built upon the footprint of the original existing porch, which was designed as an integral part of the dwelling’s original appearance with an appropriately scaled floor size. Being set back from the highway, the proposed extension would not be overly dominant within the streetscene or the context of the appeal property.

The appeal site’s twin property, No 38, has a two storey front extension of similar form and scale to the proposed extension. I acknowledge that this extension is less than ideal, however, the harm mostly stems from its lack of symmetry with the appeal property. This undermines the discernible order and regularity of the housing typology, which is exacerbated by the properties’ prominent location within the street. The proposal would restore that symmetry, as it matches the scale and form of the extension at No 38, and the resulting sense of balance would contribute positively to the streetscene. Therefore, whilst I understand the Council’s reservations about the prominence of front extensions, in these specific circumstances given the existence of No 38, the proposed extension would be visually beneficial.

The Council has drawn my attention to the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2005) (SPD) and specifically Paragraph 9.5, which states that porches can cause disturbance to the main elevation of a dwelling and intrusion within the streetscene, citing the effect on terraced properties in particular. The Council considers the same design principle can be applied in this case; however, I do not agree.

The character and appearance of [address] is distinctly different to a street comprised of terraced housing. Furthermore, porches are an original feature of this residential street, as are garages and canopies, and the houses are routinely spaced out with a variety of domestic extensions and outbuildings in evidence. Consequently, I give little weight to the SPD in this respect.

For the above reasons I conclude that the proposed extension would not detract from the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the streetscene. Accordingly, it would comply with Policy EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan (2016), which, amongst other things, supports development that is well-designed and contributes positively to an area’s character in terms of scale, height and the relationship to adjacent buildings.

The site lies within the catchment of the [name] which forms the Peak District Dales Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Levels of phosphorus within the river are such that it is causing harm to the aquatic habitat that supports a range of wildlife. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) means that consent cannot be granted for development that would have a likely significant effect on the SAC. The Council have provided a screening analysis on whether the proposal creates a source of water pollution or has an impact on water quality and concluded there would be no likely significant effect on the SAC either alone or in combination with other development.

The proposal would result in a modest extension to an existing three bedroom property. The floorplans show that it would neither increase the number of bedrooms, nor introduce further sanitaryware. The overall footprint of the building would remain similar to the existing property. As such, the evidence indicates that there would no discernible change to either the foul or surface water drainage volumes associated with the appeal property. On that basis, I concur that there would be no likely significant effect on the water quality of the SAC and that an Appropriate Assessment under the Regulations is therefore unnecessary in this case.

Conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the approved plans are imposed in the interests of certainty.

It is necessary to include a planning condition securing the use of appropriate materials, in order to ensure the proposed extension does not detract from the character or appearance of the host property or the streetscene.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development accords with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate I should take a decision other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.