APPLICATION NUMBER:  25/00316/HOUS

Application Number:  	25/00316/HOUS	
Location:	3 Kingsway, Middleton, M24 1LR	
Proposal:	Single storey front porch and canopy extension over existing window,  single storey flat roof side extension and single storey pitched roof rear extension and installation of additional window on rear elevation at first floor	
Applicant:	Mr Chris Daly	
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	    ✓	
	
It is important to note that there are variations to the architectural styles and built forms along this section of Kingsway. Most of the properties have been variously altered over time, resulting in a reduced degree of uniformity. Therefore, the proposed alterations to the front elevation, including the porch, would not appear at odds with either the character of the host property or surrounding area. While the proposed flat roof design of the side extension would not be ideal, it is noted that this is somewhat mitigated by the use of a small, mono-pitched roof to the front elevation of the extension. Further, it is considered that the proposed roof design is the most appropriate in this situation given the unusual shape of the extension as a result of the skewed side boundary. 

The design of the proposal is therefore acceptable on balance 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 single storey extensions would be of a scale and siting that would not result in any undue overshadowing or create an overbearing presence for the neighbours. The extensions would not impact on the privacy of neighbours and 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 development would retain the existing parking provision on the driveway. 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:

-	Location Plan
-	Existing Ground Floor Plan. Dwg no. 916-02
-	Existing First Floor Plan. Dwg no. 916-03
-	Existing Elevations. Dwg no. 916-06
-	Existing Site, Block And Location Plan. Dwg no. 916-07
-	Proposed Site, Block And Location Plan. Dwg no. 916-07A
-	Proposed Ground Floor Plan. Dwg no. 916-08A
-	Proposed First Floor Plan. Dwg no. 916-09A
-	Proposed Elevations. Dwg no. 916-12A

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 development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with drawing 916-12A unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 
	
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, the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 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	08/05/2025	Signed: BM	
Authorisation	08/05/2025	Signed: RC	

Report Author Bob Melling