Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Application Number
104796/FH/2014/S2
Date of Appln
4 Feb 2014
Item 9
10 April 2014
Committee Date
10 Apr 2014
Ward
Didsbury East Ward
Proposal
Erection of single storey side and rear extension together with external
elevational alterations including enlargement of the rear dormer and
installation of timber shed following demolition of existing garage.
Location
28 Old Broadway, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 3DF
Applicant
Mr Nathan Ezair , Flint Glass Wharf, 35 Radium Street, Ancoats Urban
Village, Manchester, M4 6AD,
Agent
Ms Zanthe Wray, Ollier Smurthwaite Architects, 106 Albert Mill, 10
Hulme Hall Road, Manchester, M15 4LY,
Description
The application site is a substantial semi-detached dwelling set within a large plot
with front and rear gardens. There is also a single storey garage at the side of the
dwelling abutting the shared boundary with number 30 Old Broadway.
The property is two storeys in height with accommodation in the roof space.
Constructed of mainly brick and render there are projecting bays at front and rear
which are distinctive features of the properties within the street scene.
The property sits within the Old Broadway Conservation Area which was designated
in January 1991. Old Broadway is a cul-de-sac which has a grassed central
reservation interrupted by two roundabouts and is lined on either side by a
combination of detached and semi-detached houses.
The applicant is seeking planning permission to erect a single storey side extension
(1.4 metres rising to 1.68 metres in height) and a single storey rear extension (3
metres in height) together with external elevational alterations including enlargement
of the rear dormer and installation of timber shed following demolition of existing
garage.
Although the following elements of the proposal do not require planning permission
the applications is also proposing as part of the improvements to the property
replacing window fenestration on both front and rear, installing new windows, a new
front door and rendering part of the first floor rear elevation.
Consultations
Local residents/public opinion – Four objections have been received. A summary of
the comments are as follows;
 By allowing an extension to the side of the property would set a precedent and
would make it difficult to refuse any future applications which would be
detrimental to the character of the road;
 Unsure as to the extension would appear should it be built;
59
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
 The wooden shed to replace the existing is not of an unattractive design, but it
is extremely modern;
 Drawings do not show the dimensions and are concerned that the extension
would be built larger than what is shown on the drawings;
 Seek confirmation that there is no change to the existing surface or foul water
regimes that may cause damage to existing system or adversely affect their
performance;
 Concerned about the height of the fence and whether there will be a reduction
in light;
 Position, height and length of the proposed shed is unclear and may result in
the removal of a mature tree. This would be unacceptable;
 Seek confirmation that the works will not harm the integrity of the neighbouring
properties;
 Concerned that the whole conservation area status will be affected by the
proposal;
 The extension at the rear will change the appearance of original dwelling
house; and
 Concerned that the property may be converted into two or more flats at a later
date.
Following a re-notification for revised drawings a further five objections have been
received however no new issues were raised.
Old Broadway Residents Association (OBRA) Object to the above planning application.
Old Broadway is a unique road. The OBRA committee review all planning
applications made for the properties on the road and monitor the impact they have on
the conservation status of the road.
The Residents Association refer to the designation of Old Broadway Conservation
Area which states under the heading ‘Improvement and enhancement’:
“It is not envisaged that any major redevelopments will take place in the foreseeable
future, indeed the main aim of the designation is to ensure that the character and
quality of both the buildings and the spaces between them is retained.”
This latest application for planning permission to build a side extension goes against
the preservation / conservation of Old Broadway. We consider in particular building a
side extension protruding into the drive at the side of the property is not retaining the
spaces between the houses. Neither is it ensuring the preservation of the character
of the houses. No matter how small or low the side extension it sets a MAJOR
precedent so that future development may see larger side extensions.
To date on Old Broadway we have seen many examples of a precedent being set –
and the unfortunate events that then follow as new owners take the opportunity to
take the precedent further.
60
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
Ward Members
Councillor Andrew Taylor – Has stated that he would like to reflect the concerns from
a local resident. in particularly he is concerned with the erosion of the status of
conservation area restrictions.
Policy
Core Strategy - The Core Strategy was adopted on the 11th July 2012 and replaces
a large number of policies in Manchester’s Unitary Development Plan. The relevant
policies within the Core Strategy are as follows:
Policy SP1 ‘Spatial Principals’
Policy SP1 sets out the key spatial principles which will guide the strategic
development of Manchester to 2027, the policy states that all development in the City
should:
 Make a positive contribution to neighbourhoods of choice including:- creating well designed places that enhance or create character.
- making a positive contribution to the health, safety and wellbeing of
residents
- considering the needs of all members of the community regardless of
age, gender, disability, sexuality, religion, culture, ethnicity or income.
- protect and enhance the built and natural environment.
 Minimise emissions, ensure efficient use of natural resources and reuse
previously developed land wherever possible.
 Improve access to jobs, services, education and open space by being located
to reduce the need to travel and provide good access to sustainable transport
provision.
Of Particular relevance to this application are the following policies
 Policy EN 3 ‘Heritage’
The policy states that the Council will encourage development that complements and
takes advantage of the distinct historic and heritage features of its districts and
neighbourhoods, including those of the City Centre. New developments must be
designed so as to support the Council in preserving or, where possible, enhancing
the historic environment, the character, setting and accessibility of areas and
buildings of acknowledged importance (this includes conservation areas).
 Policy DM1 ‘Development Management’
All development should have regard to the following specific issues for which more
detailed guidance may be given within a supplementary planning document: Appropriate siting, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and detail.
61
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
 Impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance of
the proposed development. Development should have regard to the character of
the surrounding area.
 Effects on amenity, including privacy, light, noise, vibration, air quality, odours,
litter, vermin, birds, road safety and traffic generation. This could also include
proposals which would be sensitive to existing environmental conditions, such as
noise.
 Accessibility: buildings and neighbourhoods fully accessible to disabled people,
access to new development by sustainable transport modes.
 Community safety and crime prevention.
 Design for health.
 Adequacy of internal accommodation and external amenity space.
 Refuse storage and waste.
 Vehicular access and car parking.
 Effects relating to biodiversity, landscape, archaeological or built heritage.
 Green Infrastructure including open space, both public and private.
 The use of alternatives to peat-based products in landscaping/gardens within
development schemes.
 Flood risk and drainage.
 Existing or proposed hazardous installations.
The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for the City of Manchester (1995) - The
Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester was adopted in 1995 and has
largely been replaced with the policies contained within the Core Strategy. However,
there are a number of policies that are extant. The relevant policies in this case are
as follows:
Extant policies DC1.1 – DC1.6, contained within part 2 of the UDP, outlines criteria
for the extension and alteration to residential properties. The relevant parts of the
policy are:
 DC1.1 states that in determining planning applications for extensions to
residential properties, the Council will have regard to:
a) The general character of the property;
b) The effect upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers;
c) The desirability of enabling people to adapt their houses in appropriate ways to
meet changing household needs;
d) The overall appearance of the proposal in the street-scene;
e) The effect of the loss of any on site car parking.
 DC1.2 states that extensions to residential properties will be allowed subject to
compliance with other relevant policies of the Plan and the following criteria:
a) they are not excessively large or bulky (for example, resulting in structures
which are not subservient to original houses or project out too far in front of the
original buildings);
b) they do not create an undue loss of sunlight, daylight or privacy;
62
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
c) they are not out of character with the style of development in the area or the
surrounding street scene by virtue of design, use of materials or constructional
details;
d) they would not result in the loss of off-street car-parking, in a situation where
there is so severe an existing on-street parking problem that unacceptable
additional pressures would be created.
 DC1.3 states that notwithstanding the generality of the above policies, the Council
will not normally approve rearward extensions greater than 3.65m (12 ft) in length.
 Extant Policy DC18.1 states that the Council will give particularly careful
consideration to development proposals within Conservation Areas. The Council
will seek to preserve or enhance the character of its designated Conservation
Areas by considering the following issues:
I. The relationship of new structure to neighbouring buildings and spaces;
II. The effect of major changes to the appearance of existing buildings.
For reasons outlined further in this report, the proposal is considered to be in
accordance with the local development framework and saved UDP policies.
National Planning Policy Framework
The central theme to the NPPF is to achieve sustainable development. The
Government states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: an
economic role, a social role and an environmental role (paragraphs 6 & 7).
Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the NPPF outline a “presumption in favour of
sustainable development”. This means approving development, without delay, where
it accords with the development plan and where the development plan is absent or
relevant policies are out-of-date, to grant planning permission unless any adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when
assessed against the NPPF.
Issues
Principle – The application site comprises of a residential property, the applicant is
seeking to erect a single storey side and rear extension together with external
elevational alterations including enlargement of the rear dormer and installation of
timber shed following demolition of the existing garage. It is considered that the
principle of extending the application property to provide additional living
accommodation is acceptable.
Policy DC 1.1- 1.6 provides the criteria for the extension and alteration to residential
properties.
Matters that will require consideration, in order to assess the acceptability of any
proposal are siting, scale and massing, design and appearance. In this instance it is
also necessary to consider the proposal in the context of its siting within a
63
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
conservation area. Further consideration will be given as to whether the proposal has
any impact on surrounding residential amenity.
In considering the above matters, consideration will be given to the contents of
policies DC1.1 – DC1.3 and DC18.1.
Each of these matters will be addressed in turn.
Siting/layout – The extensions will be sited at the rear and side of the property, the
dormer will be in the rear roof and the proposed timber shed will be located in the
rear garden.
The proposal seeks to utilise and reconfigure the internal space to create a dining
room and kitchen area on the lower ground floor with a single storey rear and side
extension. The side extension will have a sideward projection of 1.2 metres and
would leave a gap of 2 metres to the shared boundary of 30 Old Broadway and 5.9
metres to the dwelling house. Although described as single storey in height, the
extension would only be 1.4 metres rising to 1.68 metres in height.
As shown on figure 1 the extension would not occupy the full length of the dwelling
house and would still maintain the sense of space between the buildings.
Figure :1 Siting of proposed extension
The proposed garden shed will be located in approximately the same position as the
existing garage which is next to the shared boundary with 30 Old Broadway.
64
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
The siting of the extension and shed appears to be well considered by the applicant
and in a logical position in order to reduce the impact of the proposal. When taking
into account the proposal to erect a timber fence and gate which would span across
the existing driveway at the side, the proposal, when viewed from the front of the
property would not be visible from Old Broadway (as shown in Figure 2).
Figure 2: Proposed Streetscene
Scale and Massing – As mentioned previously in the report the reconfiguration of
the internal layout of the dwelling house will allow the applicant to utilise the existing
basement to create a new lower ground floor which will contain a dining and kitchen
area. As a result the extension on the side would have a height of 1.4 metres rising to
1.68 metres at the rear due to slight natural incline in the land within the curitlage of
the site. Furthermore there are existing external steps and railings (Figure 3) which
have a height of 1.73 metres. Therefore, the proposal would be lower in height than a
typical single storey extension. This will create an extension that is subservient to the
original dwelling house and would maintain a sense of openness and space between
the buildings (Figure 2 and Appendix 1).
65
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
Figure 3 Existing and Proposed Front Elevation without gates
At the rear, the extension would have a height of 3.8 metres and a rearward
projection of only 1 metre. These dimensions are not considered to be excessively
large and in terms of rearward projection the extension is much less than the 3.65
metres set out in extant policy DC1.3.
The timber shed would have a height of 2.3 metres rising to 3 metres dual pitched
roof, a length of 7.5 metres and a width of 3.5 metres. It is noted that the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Amendment) 2008 allows
for extensions that are within 2 metres of the boundary to have a height of 2.5 metres
without the benefit of planning permission. It is considered in this circumstance that
the impact in terms of massing on the boundary would be reduced by the dual
pitched roof and thus the shed would not be overbearing on 30 Old Broadway.
Overall, it is considered that the extensions in terms of scale and massing can be
accommodated and would only lead to a relatively small increase in the footprint of
the property.
Design and Appearance – The proposal includes elevation alterations to the front of
the property which includes a new front door and new windows with the same
proportions and fenestration details as the original house.
At the rear and side (Figure 4) both the extensions and shed would be of a
contemporary design. The materials proposed on the extension are light grey
through-coloured acrylic render on the rear elevation and a grey brick for the side
elevation. The design together with the choice of materials would, it is considered,
complement the existing dwellinghouse.
66
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
Figure 4 Proposed Side and Rear Elevations
The proposal also seeks to enlarge and re-configure the existing dormer by raising
the height and dropping the window cill, there are other examples of dormers for this
type of property within the conservation area and the proposed lead finish is
considered to be acceptable.
The shed is again of a contemporary design, it would present the appearance of a
flat roof timber shed from the front rising to a dual pitched roof. This would be an
improvement on the existing garage which is not original to the property. The
proposed material for the shed is predominantly timber, this is considered to be
acceptable however details of the exact material have not been specified therefore it
is recommended a condition of the planning permission is to request that the
materials are submitted to the City Council prior to commencement of development.
Impact on the Old Broadway Conservation Area – Extant Policy DC18.1 states
that applications within conservation areas should preserve or enhance the
appearance and character of a conservation area. Policy EN 3 states that new
developments must be designed so as to support the Council in preserving or, where
possible, enhancing the historic environment, the character, setting and accessibility
of areas this includes conservation areas.
The objection letter by the Old Broadway Residents Association references the City
Council guidelines for the Old Broadway conservation area which states that it is not
foreseen that any major redevelopments will take place in the foreseeable future and
that the main aim of the designation is to ensure that the character and quality of
both the buildings and the spaces between them is retained. Domestic residential
extensions such as the one proposed are not considered to be ‘major’ developments.
Further as discussed within the report the design, appearance, scale and massing of
the proposal has been carefully considered. The extension at the side would be
subservient to the main dwelling house and would still retain the sense of openness
and space between buildings.
It is considered that the visual amenity and the character of the conservation area
would not be harmed by the proposal, as part of a package of improvements which
67
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
include new fenestration to the front and rear of the property it has the potential to
enhance the area. As such it is considered that the extension complies with polices
DC18.1 and EN 3.
Residential Amenity – There have been a number of objections and concerns
raised by local residents and OBRA.
Concerns have been raised that by approving the application a precedent would be
set for other extensions to come forward. However, each planning application is
assessed on their own individual merits and in this instance it is considered that the
issues of amenity and impact on the conservation area have been carefully
addressed.
A replacement fence on the shared boundary which is higher than the existing has
been raised as a concern, particularly if it would affect light into the neighbouring
property. The submitted drawings do not indicate that the boundary fence would be
replaced on the shared boundary; however under the part 2 of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 the occupiers can erect a
fence to a height of 2 metres without the need for planning permission.
Residents have also expressed concern over the siting of the proposed shed and
that it may result in the removal of a mature tree. The drawings do not indicate that
any trees would be removed as part of the application, however it is noted that the
shed will be sited close to one of the existing trees. It is therefore recommended that
a condition of the planning permission requires that the tree roots are protected
during construction work. As with all trees within a conservation area an application
would be required for any works to a tree or for their removal.
With regards to the concerns raised as to whether the property would be converted
into flats at a later date, this would require planning permission and at this time there
are no indications that the proposal relates to anything other than a dwellinghouse.
Matters regarding structural integrity and drainage systems are matters that would be
considered under building regulations.
Human Rights Act 1998 considerations – This application needs to be considered
against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants
(and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations)
have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full
consideration to their comments.
Protocol 1 Article 1, and Article 8 where appropriate, confer(s) a right of respect for a
person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material
considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Core Strategy and saved
polices of the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Planning, Building Control &
Licensing has concluded that some rights conferred by these articles on the
applicant(s)/objector(s)/resident(s) and other occupiers and owners of nearby land
that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in
accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis
of the planning merits of the development proposal. She believes that any restriction
68
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
on these rights posed by the approval of the application is proportionate to the wider
benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion
afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
Recommendation
APPROVE
Article 31 Declaration
Officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on
seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning
application. The proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the
development plan.
Reason for recommendation
Approve on the basis that the proposal is in accordance with the Manchester Core
Strategy (July 2012), in particular policies SP1, EN3 and DM1 and the extant policies
in the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (1995), in particular the
following policies DC1.1-1.3 and DC18.1, and National Planning Policy Framework
and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise. In
coming to this conclusion the Head of Planning has taken into account the
Information provided with the application.
Conditions to be attached to the decision
1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years
beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
following drawings and documents:
Drawings: A201_P_001A_Location Plan & Proposed Block Plan,
A201_P_200E_Proposed Floor Plans, A201_P_201D_Proposed Upper Ground Floor
Plan, A201_P_202E_Proposed Side & Rear Elevations, A201_P_203B_Proposed
Sections A-A & B-B, A201_P_204B_Proposed Section C-C,
A201_P_205B_Proposed Section D-D
A201_P_206B_Proposed Front Elevation, A201_P_207A_Proposed Timber Shed
Plans & Elevations and A201_P_208_Existing & Proposed Front Elevations stamped
as received by the City Council, as Local Planning Authority, on the 18th March 2014
and A201_P_210A Proposed Street Elevation stamped as received by the City
Council, as Local Planning Authority, on the 19 March 2014
Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the
approved plans. Pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.
3) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
following materials:
69
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
Brick:
Nevado Geel Gesmoord by Facade Beek (207 x 97 x 49mm)
Render:
'Pewter' by K-Rend
Dormer Cladding:
Lead
Reason - To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable to the City
Council as local planning authority in the interests of the visual amenity of the area
within which the site is located, as specified in policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core
Strategy.
4) Notwithstanding the approved plans, the erection of the garden shed hereby
approved shall not commence unless and until samples and specifications of all
materials to be used on the garden shed been submitted to and approved in writing
by the City Council as local planning authority.
Reason - To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable to the City
Council as local planning authority in the interests of the visual amenity of the area
within which the site is located, as specified in policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core
Strategy.
5) Prior to the erection of the garden shed, details of fencing for the protection of any
tree in close proximity to the garden shed shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be in situ before
any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of
the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus
materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any
area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written
consent of the local planning authority.
Reason - In order avoid damage to trees/shrubs adjacent to and within the site which
are of important amenity value to the area and in order to protect the character of the
area, in accordance with policies EN9 and EN15 of the Core Strategy.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
The documents referred to in the course of this report are either contained in the
file(s) relating to application ref: 104796/FH/2014/S2 held by planning or are City
Council planning policies, the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester,
national planning guidance documents, or relevant decisions on other applications or
appeals, copies of which are held by the Planning Division.
The following residents, businesses and other third parties in the area were
consulted/notified on the application:
Old Broadway Residents Association
70
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways Committee
Item 9
10 April 2014
37 Westholme Road, Manchester, M20 3QZ
39 Westholme Road, Manchester, M20 3QZ
41 Westholme Road, Manchester, M20 3QZ
43 Westholme Road, Manchester, M20 3QZ
26 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
30 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
25 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DH
27 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DH
29 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DH
31 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DH
24 Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
Representations were received from the following third parties:
Old Broadway Residents Association
8, Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
22, Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
24, Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
26, Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
30, Old Broadway, Manchester, M20 3DF
Relevant Contact Officer :
Telephone number
:
Email
:
Robert Tyrer
0161 234 4068
[email protected]
71
Manchester City Council
Planning and Highways
Appendix 1 - Item 9
10 April 2014
Appendix 1 Existing and Proposed Streetscene
Existing street scene
Proposed street scene
72