Two storey rear extension and single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2025 by R J Redford MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000850 51A Grange Road, Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL4 0PU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Amit Ray against the decision of Gloucester City Council. • The application Ref is 25/00487/FUL • The development proposed is a two storey rear extension and single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part two storey, part single storey rear extension and single storey front extension at 51A Grange Road, Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL4 0PU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00487/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 100; 102 Revision A; and 120. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those described on drawing no 120, or match those used in the existing dwelling ‘51A Grange Road’. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene, and the living conditions of the occupants of 53 Grange Road with specific regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The host dwelling is a detached 2 storey house with an integrated garage, set back behind a parking area. There is a narrow walkway to the side which provides access to the main door and to the long rear garden. It is situated in a row of other houses which are more traditional in style, with road facing front doors. However, they are generally on more narrow plots due to many of them being semi-detached or terraced. 4. There are numerous examples of full width single storey front porch extensions on the properties along this part of Grange Road, but in general they follow a similar building line when viewed from the road. The host dwelling is not different, Appeal Decision 6000850 2 although clearly later in design. To the rear of the properties the building line is irregular and varied due to the high number of rear extensions. 5. The proposal would extend the protruding garage element across the front of the host dwelling to create a porch and replace the existing rear conservatory with a full width part 1 and 2 storey extension. 6. The host dwelling is at odds to the surrounding properties by being more modern in style and with a front facing gable. The proposed porch would alter the frontage of the host dwelling but in a form that is exemplified on both newer and more traditional houses in the area. It would be in keeping with the host dwelling’s more modern styling and would create a more legible house layout with a road facing front door, so better relate to the street scene. 7. It is recognised the proposed porch would extend the range of materials across the frontage of the host dwelling by including a vertical grey cladding. However, it would also remove the existing grey tiled roof over the garage. Therefore, the proposed porch materials would harmonise the ground floor frontage of the host dwelling and in this instance, the grey colour would have a receding effect in contrast to the existing brighter materials. Accordingly, it would not overwhelm or draw attention away from the original features of the host dwelling. Nevertheless, were matching materials used in this element of the proposal it would be equally as acceptable. The proposed front extension would therefore be appropriate both in terms of its impact on the appeal dwelling and the street scene. 8. The proposed rear extension would be large but would be screened from the road, of a style that complements the host dwelling and finished in matching materials. It is also noted that there are multiple rear extensions along this part of Grange Road, a number of which would be proportionally similar to that proposed. The Council consider, on balance, that this element of the proposal would be acceptable and for the reasons above I agree with this conclusion. 9. Therefore, although both parts of the proposal would represent change, it has not been found that this would be so different to cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or street scene. The proposal would, therefore, comply with the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Join Core Strategy (CS) Policy SD4, and the Gloucester City Plan (LP) Policies A1, A9 and F1 insofar as they seek new development to respect the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. It would also align with the overarching character and appearance requirements of the Council’s Home Extension Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Living conditions 10. 53 Grange Road as with many of the properties along this part of the road, including the host dwelling, enjoys a long and well-proportioned easterly facing garden. It has a wider than average plot size, which is evident by the fact it has been extended sideways towards the appeal site. The host dwelling is to the north of No 53, and the boundary between the 2 properties is largely delineated by a substantial and tall hedge. 11. Accordingly, the outlook from the rear of No 53 is dominated by views across its own garden and south over the neighbouring gardens, with a curtailed view to the Appeal Decision 6000850 3 north. Therefore, although the proposed 2 storey element of the rear extension would extend beyond the rear of No 53, it would not be so excessive or overbearing within the outlook from that property to make the living conditions for its occupants untenable. This is due to the orientation of the gardens, the impact of the existing hedge on outlook and the relatively small proportion of the shared boundary that would be affected by the proposed rear extension in relation to the width and length of No 53’s garden. 12. The proposed front extension would not extend the host dwelling beyond its existing building line so would not impact the outlook from the front of No 53. 13. The proposal would, therefore, not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 53 Grange Road with specific regard to outlook. It would comply with CS Policy SD14, and LP Policies A1 and A9 as well as the guidance in the SPD insofar as they seek to prevent unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Conditions 14. The Council has suggested 3 conditions which I have considered against advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Therefore, in addition to securing commencement within the relevant statutory timeframe, 2 conditions have been imposed to ensure the proposal integrates acceptably within the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. One requiring adherence to the approved plans. The second, that the materials described on the plans should be used, or those that match the existing materials of the host dwelling. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. R J Redford INSPECTOR