Home extensions and outbuilding at 93 Hazelbottom Road, Manchester

What was proposed

The application sought extensions, a porch, roof dormer, outbuilding, elevational changes, a timber gate and removal of an existing shutter.

“Proposal Erection of part single, part two storey rear extension, front porch, installation of rear roof dormer and single storey outbuilding and associated elevational alterations to host property, alteration to the side boundary elevation to include new timber gate and removal of existing outbuilding shutter.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an end-terraced two-storey red-brick house near residential development, an access road and an industrial park.

“The area surrounding the application site is mixed, consisting of residential properties and industrial uses in close proximity. To the north of the application site sits new build properties 95-105 Hazelbottom Road. Further new build residential development sits to the west of the applicant site along Stoneyholme Avenue, and further north along Brandforth Avenue.”

“Amenity space is available to the front and rear of the applicant site. The front amenity space consists of an area of hardstanding and gravel and the site is bounded by a low red brick wall. The rear amenity space is characterised by areas of hardstanding and a grassed garden. An outbuilding is sited to the rear of the applicant site and an outhouse is sited close to the property, shared with no.91 Hazelbottom Road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because its benefits outweighed potential harm and it broadly complied with relevant planning policies.

“Furthermore, whilst it is noted that the proposal constitutes a decent sized extension and outbuilding to the site, it is considered such development can be accommodated within the constraints of the site. On balance, the development is considered to be acceptable, with the identified benefits outweighing any potential harm.”

“Given the above issues, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its principle, the proposal’s siting, scale, and massing, impact upon residential and visual amenity, the appearance, boundary treatment, parking, waste, access, flood risk and other issues, as it broadly complies with saved policies DC1 and DC26 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, policies DM1 and SP1 of the Manchester Core Strategy, policies JP-P1 and JP-P2 of…”

Officer report

What people said

Residents objected to the scale, appearance, construction impacts, amenity space, access and possible separate use of the outbuilding; one response supported a swift brick.

“3no. letters of objection were received in response to the application, summarised as follows: • Concern regarding demolition of the existing outhouse which has a shared boundary. Concern is raised to any damage (or loss) the works may cause. • The proposal would give rise to noise and dust during the construction. If any approval be allowed, working hours should be confined to 9am-5pm weekdays. • The proposed front porch would erode the symmetry of the current terrace.”

“A flat roof dormer extension would appear out of character with the form of development in the immediate area. • The outbuilding would be used as an independent dwellinghouse. • The development proposed is overly large and would adversely impact the character of the existing property and garden. • The proposal constitutes overdevelopment on the site and will result in a small amount of amenity space left for the applicant’s use.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer had nothing to add, and no objector, applicant or agent attended to address the committee.

The committee decision

Councillor S Ali moved approval, Councillor Curley seconded it, and the committee approved the application subject to conditions.

“Councillor S Ali moved the officer’s recommendation of approve for the application.”

“The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions within the printed reports.”

Minutes