Appeal 6002285

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council does not raise any concerns in respect of the single storey rear extension therefore the focus of this appeal is the two-storey side extension.

The supplementary planning document, [name] (RDC) was adopted in September 2025, replacing the [name]. The RDC is a relevant material consideration and I have taken it into account as part of this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached house with a separate garage. This is typical of properties on [address] which are predominantly detached and maintain a distinct visual gap and sense of separation between each other when viewed from the street. This creates a spaciousness to the pattern of development on the street and a rhythm to its character.

A number of properties on [address] have incorporated two-storey side extensions. However, I noted whilst visiting the site that these have either incorporated an appreciable setback or were able to retain a clear and distinct gap with the adjacent property. This ensures that such extensions remain subservient to the original dwelling and retain a clear visual break with the adjacent property so as to avoid a terracing effect.

The existing footprint of the appeal property includes a separate single-storey garage to the side of the house. Due to its positioning, set well back from the front elevation of the appeal property, the space in front and above the garage provides a clear visual break in built form between No.65 and the neighbouring property of No.67. This visual break is important because there is virtually no gap between the house at No.67 and the side boundary of No.65. As a result, the existing house and gap separating it from No.[address] scene and makes a positive contribution to it. I note that the guidance provided in the RDC indicates that side extensions should not result in development within 1 metre of the common boundary or where terracing would result.

The proposed two-storey extension, in occupying all the available space between the side of the house and the common boundary with No.67 would remove this distinct visual gap when viewed from the street. Whilst the height of the roof to the proposed extension would be set down in relation to the main roof and a setback from the front elevation would be included, the setback would be nominal and not readily discernible when viewed from the street.

The overall design of the proposed two-storey extension would be reflective of the appearance of the original dwelling. However, the lack of discernible setback coupled with its proximity to the adjacent property of No.67 would not be sympathetic to the defining characteristics of the surrounding area. Instead, it would lead to the loss of a clear and distinct visual break in development between the appeal property and No.67. The resulting terracing effect would unduly urbanise the street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other examples of extensions beyond [address] which I observed during my site visit. However, I concluded these examples are materially different to the appeal proposal in regard to the character of the area and their relationship with adjoining properties. I also conclude that in regard to previous appeal decisions these will have been made in the context of both the individual merits of the proposal and the policy framework at that time. As a result, reference to these matters has not altered my findings in relation to the main issue.

Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal is in conflict with Policies 1 and 10 of the [name] (Part 1 and 2) which sets out that new development should make a positive contribution to the sense of place and ensure that proposals are sympathetic to the changes and appearance of neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area. This includes elements such as massing, scale and proportion.

I have considered the appeal on its own merits based on the scheme before me and the issues regarding the handling of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here.

I note that there have been no objections raised to the proposal from adjoining properties or third parties, however this is not a reason in itself to allow development which is visually harmful.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.