Appeal 6001213

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single and two-storey (plus roof) rear extension to replace existing single-storey extension, replacement of windows, rebuilding and alterations to outbuildings, erection of gate and garden wall, and associated alterations at [site address] , Wiltshire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/06811, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by Henry & [name] against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Planning permission was granted in August 2025 for a scheme that is materially similar to the appeal proposal. The appeal scheme differs only in the depth of the glazed link, the width of the rearmost first-floor element and associated fenestration changes. All other components replicate the approved development. As the Council’s reasons for refusal relate solely to these disputed elements, my assessment focuses on them accordingly.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the appeal building and the wider area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], having regard to privacy.

[site address] is an 18th-century dwelling of symmetrical form, Flemish-bond brickwork and traditional detailing. Although altered over time, it retains a locally distinctive and historic character that contributes positively to the village street scene.

The site lies adjacent to the [name] listed [address]. I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting as required by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The site also lies within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape, and I have had regard to the statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

The previously approved scheme permits a substantial two-storey rear extension, together with a glazed link in broadly the same position and overall form as the appeal proposal. That permission was granted only shortly before the submission of the current application and would appear to be extant. The appellant has expressed a clear intention to extend the property, and there is nothing before me to indicate that the approved scheme could not be built. The fallback therefore represents a realistic and genuine alternative, and provides a weighty benchmark against which to assess the effects of the disputed elements.

Against that benchmark, the additional width of the first-floor element would be modest. It would remain comfortably contained within the rear elevation and would not disrupt the established hierarchy between the principal range and the extension. The ridge height would match that of the host dwelling and a chimney is proposed. The approved fallback already establishes that a full-height rear range is acceptable in this position. Furthermore, these features would not materially change how subservient the rear range appears as public views are limited to oblique angles and from those positions the hierarchy between the ranges would remain clear.

The Council considers the flat-roofed form to be discordant, and [name] of the [name] similarly discourages flat roofs on extensions above single storey. However, the established fallback already demonstrates that a flat-roofed link in this position is acceptable in principle. The additional depth would be modest and would not materially alter its visual effect. The link sits at eaves level, provides a clear visual break between the existing and proposed built forms, and its recessive position ensures it would not appear unduly prominent.

The revised fenestration pattern would create a coherent and balanced arrangement on the rear elevation, reflecting the formal ordering of the principal façade. The use of timber sash windows would enhance the building’s appearance compared with the existing uPVC units.

The proposal would not materially alter the relationship between the appeal site and the adjacent listed building. The extension would remain to the rear, with no harmful encroachment into the listed building’s setting. The Council itself concluded that the setting would be preserved, and I agree.

Similarly, the proposal would not harm the special qualities or tranquillity of the National Landscape. The extension would be read within the context of the built-up area of the village, and the additional rooflights would not give rise to a level of light spill that would materially affect the wider landscape.

Taking all of these factors into account, including the weight afforded to the fallback, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the appeal building or the wider area. It therefore complies with Core Policy 57 of the [name] (2015) (CS), and with the guidance in [name] of the [name], which both seek proportionate, coherent and subservient extensions.

The Council’s second reason for refusal concerns actual and perceived overlooking of [address] from first-floor windows in the west elevation. The fallback scheme includes a similar arrangement of first-floor windows and therefore establishes an existing baseline of overlooking.

The appeal proposal would increase the width of the windows and introduce an additional sash window serving a small bedroom. The separation distance between the properties is around 15 metres, and the relationship is oblique rather than directly facing. While the Council refers to a rural expectation of privacy, the properties lie within the built-up area of the village, where some degree of mutual overlooking is not unusual.

The Council also refers to the perception of overlooking and the inability to rely on intervening vegetation. However, when viewed against the fallback, the additional glazing would not materially intensify either actual or perceived overlooking. The room served is modest in size, and the increased width of the windows would not significantly alter the perception of overlooking beyond that already established.

Any residual concern can be satisfactorily addressed through a condition requiring obscure glazing and restricted opening to the new sash window. Unlike the Council, I do not consider that such a condition would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure for the room in question, given its modest size and the presence of other windows serving the space.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], having regard to privacy. It therefore complies with Core Policy 57 of the CS and with [name] of the [name], which both seek to safeguard neighbouring privacy.

The Council’s ecology team raised no objection subject to conditions securing compliance with the submitted bat survey, biodiversity enhancements and control of external lighting. These matters can be addressed by conditions.

Most of the conditions attached to this decision reflect those suggested by the Council. Where the wording has been amended, this has been done to ensure precision, enforceability and consistency with national guidance on the use of planning conditions.

A standard time-limit condition is required by statute. A condition listing the approved plans is necessary for certainty. A materials condition is required to ensure that the external finishes integrate appropriately with the historic character of the host dwelling. A condition requiring obscure glazing to the new sash window in the west elevation is necessary to protect the privacy of the occupants of [address].

Conditions relating to ecological mitigation and enhancement are required to ensure compliance with the submitted bat survey and to secure biodiversity benefits. A condition controlling external lighting is necessary to avoid adverse effects on bat habitat and to ensure that lighting is designed in accordance with recognised guidance.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 226 001 [name], 226 SK 400 [name], 226 SK 401 [name], 226 SK 402 [name], 226 SK 405 [name], 226 SK 410 [name], 226 SK 411 [name], 226 SK 415 [name], 226 SK 420 [name] and 226 SK 421 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match in material, colour and texture those of the existing building, unless otherwise shown on the approved plans.

The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation and method measures set out in Section 4 of the [name] of [site address] , [site address] , Wiltshire, [postcode] by [name] (M1144.005_v.2, dated 15 May 2025).

The new first-floor sash window in the west elevation serving Bedroom 04 shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum of Level 3 of the Pilkington scale (or equivalent) and shall be non-opening below 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level. The window shall be installed prior to first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of the number, design and locations of bat roosting and bird-nesting features (such as bat boxes and bird boxes) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved features shall be installed prior to first occupation and retained thereafter.

No new external lighting shall be installed until details of the proposed lighting have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall demonstrate how the lighting has been designed to minimise impacts on bat habitat and shall accord with the Institution of Lighting Professionals’ Guidance Notes for the Reduction of [name] (GN01/2021) and Guidance Note GN08/23 “Bats and artificial lighting at night”. The lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details. End of Schedule