First-floor side extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Policy Weight
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 October 2022
by G Dring BA (Hons) MA MRTPI MAUDE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 08 NOVEMBER 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/K2420/D/22/3305188
7 Norwood Close, Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 1TS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Mathew Stachurski against the decision of Hinckley and
Bosworth Borough Council.
• The application Ref 22/00459/HOU, dated 12 May 2022, was refused by notice dated
7 July 2022.
• The development proposed is a first-floor side extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Mathew Stachurski against Hinckley
and Bosworth Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate
decision.
Procedural Matters
3. The description of development was amended by the Council in agreement with
the appellant. Therefore, the development description in the banner heading
above reflects the revised wording as set out on the appeal form.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the area.
Reasons
5. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling with attached single
storey garage that has been converted to living accommodation, located in a
residential area. The dwelling sits between two other detached dwellings,
forming a short row at the end of a cul-de-sac. There is general consistency in
the design of the dwellings and, like many other properties along the street,
there is a gap at first floor level between the appeal site and the neighbouring
property.
6. Guidance set out in the Good Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document
2020 (SPD) in relation to two storey side extensions, states that, proposals
should be set down from the ridge of the existing house and set back from the
front elevation (the minimum distance for this should be 0.5m in both
Appeal Decision APP/K2420/D/22/3305188
2
directions) unless this in itself would create an imbalance in the overall design
of the property.
7. There is an existing single storey projection to the front elevation that would be
maintained as part of the proposed development and the proposed extension
would be set back from this element of the existing dwelling. However, the
proposed extension would be flush with the front wall and roof of the existing
two storey element of the dwelling where it would attach to the side elevation
and therefore the proposal would conflict with the guidance set out in the SPD.
8. The SPD does not form part of the development plan and is only guidance
designed to help implement the Council’s development plan policies. However,
the SPD does carry weight as a material consideration in decision making. The
guidance set out in the SPD should not be applied prescriptively to the
exclusion of all other factors, including the individual physical circumstances of
the appeal site and the surrounding context.
9. Whilst the use of matching materials and fenestration detailing would help to
incorporate the extension and the width of the proposed extension is limited,
the proposal would not appear subservient and the resultant gap between the
extended dwelling and 6 Norwood Close would provide insufficient visual relief
to protect their separate identities. This would lead to a terracing effect,
resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area.
10. 8 Norwood Close located adjacent, to the right of the appeal site when viewing
from the road, has been extended at two storey level. However, this differs to
the appeal proposal, given the extension is to the other side of the dwelling at
the end of the row of properties, with the gap at first floor level above the
garage between No 8 and No 7 being retained.
11. There have been extensions carried out to other dwellings within the
surrounding area. Amongst others, the appellant has raised 18 Norwood Close
in particular, which has a first-floor flush extension in situ. This particular form
of extension, whilst I accept it is present in the street scene, does not form
part of the prevailing character of the area, with a significant majority of
dwellings retaining the original separation and spacing at first floor level. In
any case, the other examples identified are detached from the appeal site, such
that they have no discernible influence on the character of this part of the cul-
de-sac, where each of the three detached dwellings appear distinctly separate.
12. Reference has been made by the appellant to the side-to-side distance set out
in the SPD which encourages, in the design of extensions, the retention of a
1m gap from boundaries with neighbouring properties. Whilst the proposed
extension would be set off from the boundary at first floor level in line with the
existing ground floor-built form, this section of the SPD relates to single storey
developments and is not therefore relevant to the proposed first floor
extension.
13. I also note the appellant's assertion that the development would benefit from
permitted development rights if it was sited further away from the
neighbouring property. There is no suggestion from the appellant that such a
scheme would represent a realistic alternative fall-back position, nor have plans
been advanced showing details of an alternative as part of this appeal.
Therefore, I attribute only limited weight to this consideration, which is based
Appeal Decision APP/K2420/D/22/3305188
3
on the scale, mass and proximity of the development in relation to the
neighbouring property.
14. I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character
and appearance of the area. This is contrary to the requirements of policy
DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies
Development Plan Document 2006-2026 (July 2016), which seeks amongst
other things to ensure that new development proposals complement or
enhance the character of the area. There would also be conflict with the SPD
which seeks to ensure that side extensions to existing dwellings are
subordinate in their scale and massing. In addition, there would also be failure
to adhere to the overarching design themes found within the National Planning
Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as they relate to achieving well
designed places and in particular paragraph 134 which requires supplementary
planning documents such as design guides and codes to be taken into account.
Other Matters
15. The design and siting of the proposed development would not be detrimental to
the living conditions of any neighbours and sufficient private garden space
would be retained for the occupiers of the appeal property. But a lack of harm
in this regard does not weigh in favour of the proposal.
Conclusion
16. The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no
other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which
outweigh the harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
G Dring
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decisions
Site visit made on 10 October 2022
by G Dring BA (Hons) MA MRTPI MAUDE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 08 NOVEMBER 2022
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/K2420/D/22/3305188
7 Norwood Close, Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 1TS
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr Mathew Stachurski for an award of costs against Hinckley
and Bosworth Borough Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of an application for planning permission for a first-
floor side extension.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Procedural matter
2. The applicant has submitted a cost application. I understand this to mean that
he is applying for a full award of costs given the reference to procedural and
substantive matters.
Reasons
3. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that, irrespective of the
outcome of an appeal, costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The application for costs
in this case was made by the applicant against the Council on two grounds,
firstly in relation to a procedural matter, and secondly in respect of the
substance of the appeal.
Procedural Claim
4. Paragraph 033 of the PPG confirms that whilst the behaviour and actions at the
time of the planning application can be taken into account in the consideration
of whether or not costs should be awarded, costs cannot be claimed for the
period during the determination of the planning application.
5. The applicant considers that the Council has exhibited unreasonable behaviour
that made the appeal necessary in the first place in relation to a lack of
proactive working and communication during the processing of the application
and since the determination in terms of the assessment and feedback on
revised plans. Neither of these actions took place as part of the appeal process
and therefore any costs that were incurred could not be awarded.
Costs Decisions APP/K2420/D/22/3305188
2
6. I note that there was a delay of four days between the Council submitting the
appeal questionnaire to the Planning Inspectorate and supplying a copy of it to
the applicant. Whilst frustrating for the applicant, I do not consider that this
delay resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense.
7. Therefore, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the PPG has not been demonstrated with
regard to the procedural matters identified by the applicant.
Substantive Claim
8. Paragraph 049 of the PPG indicates that local planning authorities will be at risk
of substantive cost awards being made against them for, amongst other things,
not determining similar cases in a consistent manner.
9. The applicant claims that the Council have not determined similar cases in a
consistent manner. However, I am satisfied that the Council considered the
appearance of other properties in the locality to make an informed judgement
about the existing character and appearance of the area.
10. In this case the reasons for refusal were generally complete, precise, specific
and relevant to the application. They clearly stated the development plan
policies that the Council found the proposal to conflict with. The reason for
refusal was substantiated by the Council in its Officer Report which adequately
explained the reasoning for the decision.
11. The Council’s Officer Report acknowledges and discusses other examples of
extensions within the surrounding area raised by the applicant, in particular
those at 13 and 18 Norwood Close and therefore it is clear that the Council did
take reasonable account of the submitted information provided by the applicant
with regard to other extensions within the vicinity of the site when determining
the application.
12. Irrespective of the applicant’s assertion that supplementary planning guidance
has been interpreted differently in different cases, I am satisfied that the
decision to refuse planning permission was taken having regard to this context,
as set out in my S78 decision. Therefore, I find that unreasonable behaviour
resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG has not
been demonstrated in this respect.
13. On the basis of the information before me I find no unreasonable behaviour
resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense during the appeal process has
been demonstrated, as described in the PPG, in respect of the procedural or
substantive claims. The application for an award of costs is therefore refused.
G Dring
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.