22/1862M: REFUSED House Extension in a Conservation Area | Trafford Road - Alderley Edge, Cheshire East Planning Application

In this case, it’s a challenge to spot the difference. The scheme is modest extensions and alterations to a large, early-mid c20 semi-detached house in Trafford Road Conservation Area. On reading the officer’s report and the reasons for refusal I was expecting to look at the scheme drawings and see a thoroughly insensitive modern addition to a historic building. Instead, I see a carefully considered scheme for additions to the side and rear of the house, pretty much in-keeping with the surrounding houses, the proposed additions are virtually a carbon-copy of what already exists at no 10!

The refusal says that this proposal has a negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area but look around at the surrounding buildings, the actual character of the street frontages is quite strong and full of character and this remains unchanged with this scheme. The Character of the rear of the properties is a real mixed bag, with single and 2-storey additions to adjacent houses on both sides.    

National planning policy (NPPF) encourages development in existing built-up areas, and encourages high quality design. The architects in this case, Calderpeel Architects,  have clearly carefully considered the sensitivity of the conservation area location, and made great endeavours to create the further space required without compromising the setting. There might be a few incongruous window shapes such as bi-folding doors on the rear at ground floor level, but if these were the only reasons for refusal then they could have been altered in discussion with the planning officer.

It appears that there are 7 neighbour representations, including amazingly the occupants at no 10, not exactly a landslide and not uncommon as nobody seems to want to embrace change especially in higher value areas. I would say that this is not exactly change, this is carefully considered addition and improvement this is why people employ architect’s to make sure the job is done properly.

My heart goes out to the owners and the architects, thoroughly frustrating that this has been refused, and to be honest because of the conservation area setting, unless the appeal inspector has some teeth they will probably not wish to go against the recommendations of the local conservation officer. In my view the planning officer should have been more assertive, the principal of this scheme and the intensions are good, and with a few tweaks should have resulted in a beneficial refusal.

If I were the architect involved I would make a few simple changes to the window patterns to make the additions look like they were always there and go-again with a free go and then to appeal, that’s the best approach albeit probably adding another year to the process - you honestly have to look hard to see the differences between existing and proposed!

‍