APPLICATION NUMBER:  25/00357/HOUS

Application Number:  	25/00357/HOUS	
Location:	3 Arnold Avenue, Heywood, OL10 2ND	
Proposal:	First floor side extension, two dormers to front elevation, two roof lights to front roof slope and four to rear including two bay windows to front elevation	
Applicant:	Paul Needham	
Case Officer:	Bob Melling	
Recommendation:	Grant subject to conditions	

DELEGATION	Applicant a Council Member or officer?	N	
	Contrary to previous decision?	N	
	Called in by Ward Member?	N	

By indicating that the development proposal complies with relevant national, sub-regional and local policies and the ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ Supplementary Planning Document, the Planning Officer is taking into account the information submitted with the application, any previous relevant applications, observations during any site visit, any comments received in connection with the application and any other considerations which are material to the decision.

Policy

National

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Sub-Regional

Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (PfE)

JP-P1		Sustainable Places

Local

Saved Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006: 

G/D/1		Defined Urban Area

Adopted Rochdale Core Strategy (CS) 2016: 

P3		Improving Design of New Development
DM1		General Development Requirements
T2		Improving Accessibility
Appendix 5	Schedule of Parking Standards

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD): Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ (2016).

Amendments

N/A

Summary of comments from neighbours, consultees and Planning Panel

N/A

Assessment 

Design and Visual Amenity: Are the following acceptable?
		
Impact on street scene, including subservience, terracing and building line	    ✓	
Height and massing 	    ✓	
Facing materials and detailing 				    ✓	
Roof style						    ✓	
Window proportions							    ✓	
Bin storage 	    ✓	
Impact on trees	    ✓	
	
While the SPD advises that front dormers will not normally be permitted, it is noted that nos. 1, 2A and 9 Arnold Avenue benefit from front dormers of a similar style to those proposed under the current application. With this in mind, it is considered the proposed front dormers would not detract from this established context and would be acceptable in principle. Further, the design of the front dormers broadly complies with the principles outlined in Section 5.17 of the SPD and their placement would aid in balancing out the increased mass of the roofscape, when viewed from the front elevation. In this instance, it is considered that the use of render for the dormer face and sides would be an appropriate material choice given that it would match the style of other dormers along the street. 

The design of the proposal is therefore acceptable and accords with CS Policies DM1 and P3, PfE Policy JP-P1, the SPD and the NPPF.
Residential Amenity: Are the following acceptable?
	
Impact on privacy, light & outlook of neighbours (to sides, rear and front)	    ✓	
Light and outlook of application property	    ✓	
Remaining garden space of application property	    ✓	

The proposed front dormers would comply with the minimum separation distances outlined in the SPD and are therefore not considered to unduly harm the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Further, while the first floor side extension would increase the massing along the common boundary with no. 5 Arnold Avenue, it is not considered that the additional massing would unduly harm the living condition of the adjoining occupiers.  

The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of residential amenity and accords with CS Policy DM1, PfE Policy JP-P1, the SPD and the NPPF.
Highways and Parking: Are the following acceptable?
	
Impact on highway safety				    ✓	
Parking provision	    ✓	

The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of highways and parking and accords with CS Policy T2, CS Appendix 5 and the NPPF.
Recommendation:  Grant subject to the following conditions

1.	The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 

2.	This permission relates to the following plans:

-	Site Location Plan
-	Existing Ground Floor Plan. Dwg no. 25.3567.1
-	Existing First Floor Plan. Dwg no. 25.3567.2A
-	Existing Elevations. Dwg no. 25.3567.3
-	Existing & Proposed Block Plans. Dwg no. 25.3567.4
-	Scheme 1 Proposed Ground Floor Plan. Dwg no. 25.3567.SC1.1
-	Proposed First Floor. Dwg no. 25.3567.SC1.2A
-	Scheme 1 Proposed Elevations. Dwg no. 25.3567.SC1.3

and the development shall be carried out in accordance with these drawings hereby approved unless otherwise required by the conditions below.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the policies contained within the saved Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, the adopted Rochdale Core Strategy, the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.	The materials used in the construction of the exterior of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing building in colour, form, type, size and texture.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policies P3 and DM1 of the adopted Rochdale Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Article 35 Statement

The proposal complies with the development plan and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. It therefore comprises sustainable development and the Local Planning Authority worked proactively to issue the decision without delay.

	Date	Officer	
Report Completed	16/05/2025	Signed: BM	
Authorisation	19/05/2025	Signed: RC	

Report Author Bob Melling