Appeal 6004637

The appeal is dismissed.

Two appeals were submitted at the same time and on the same site. They relate to two separate proposals for [site address] , each independent of the other. Each appeal has been considered as a separate entity. Appeal Ref 6004580 relates to a proposal for the erection of a first-floor rear extension, loft conversion with new dormer and new front porch and is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to visual impact.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, detached dwelling on the west side of [address] towards its southern end. The area comprises a residential suburb of mostly detached and semi-detached dwellings of the late Victorian to Edwardian period, set close to each other and behind fairly short frontages. The proposal is for a single-storey, flat roof rear extension across the full width of the dwelling to a depth of 5.6m.

[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in May 2015. When discussing the impact on residential amenity it advises that the effect of a single-storey extension is usually acceptable if the projection is no further than 4m for a detached property but that the final test of acceptability would depend on the particular circumstances on the site.

The southern flank elevation of the dwelling marks the side boundary of the appeal site with [address], which is set away from the same boundary by the width of a pedestrian access. This arrangement is mirrored on the opposite side with the flank wall of No 32 set along the northern boundary and with a pedestrian access to the side of No 34 within the curtilage of the appeal site.

The proposed extension would align with an existing single-storey lean-to extension to the rear of No 36. There would be no impact upon the outlook from any ground floor windows to the rear of this neighbouring property. There is a ground floor flank window to the side of No 36 facing towards an approximate [address]-boarded fence along the boundary. Information provided to me confirms this is non-original and serves an internal study area created when the property was extended, and which has the benefit of a secondary light source via a shuttered doorway which is linked to the rear extension. It is accepted that there would be a loss of light to this room, and that views skyward, over the existing fence, would be blocked by the extension. However, given the nature and background of this space, I share the Council’s view that there would be no impact that would significantly affect the overall living conditions within No 36.

To the opposite side, No 32 is unextended to the rear. I observed that land levels drop away slightly from the backs of these properties, with the height of the existing approximate 1.6m fence that I saw along this boundary following the profile of the land.

At its deepest, the extension would measure over 4m above ground level to the top of its parapet. This would exceed the height of any conventional boundary enclosure at a point set deep beyond the rear of No 32 and well beyond the 4m depth normally considered acceptable by the SPD. Notwithstanding its offset away from the boundary, and the width of the plots along this side of [address], which I do not consider to be particularly excessive for any detached home of this size, I find the extension would loom large and imposing at relatively close quarters when seen in the outlook from the neighbouring property’s nearest ground floor living space and from the immediately adjoining rear garden area. Furthermore, the extension’s overbearing and incongruous presence would be exaggerated by a visually incoherent step to its side profile resulting from the introduction of a parapet which would raise the height of its flank wall for a significant proportion of its length.

Overall, by reason of its size, siting, and appearance, I find the extension would be visually intrusive and harmful to the living conditions at [address]. This would be contrary to Policy 46 of the [site address] Local Plan (2024 to 2039), adopted in 2025, which requires all development to protect the amenity and living conditions for occupants of new, existing, adjoining, and neighbouring properties. For the same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy requirements for achieving well-designed places.

I am mindful of other large single-storey extensions nearby, including those specifically at Nos 36, 38 and [address]. However, from the information available, I am not persuaded that any of the examples put to me compare directly with either the maximum height or stepped form of the appeal proposal, or with the specific relationship it would have with No 32. Neither can any reasonable comparisons be made with circumstances pertaining to terraced homes in materially different residential character areas away from the appeal site.

I am aware that planning permission was granted on 2 March 2026 for works to No 34 described as ‘Ground And First Floor Rear Extension & [name] (Ref PA26/0190). I have been provided with a set of plans which show the extent of the approved works. It is clear from these that the height and depth of the single-storey element is markedly different to the scheme that is before me. The recent decision does not alter my findings.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.