For a side extension for a dependent relative

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2025 by S Ramsden BSc (Hons) MA MA IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000985 White Cottage, Broadbush, Blunsdon, Swindon SN26 7DH  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 Shekhar Deshpande against the decision of Swindon Borough Council.  The application reference is S/HOU/25/0861/JOPL.  The development proposed is for a side extension for a dependent relative. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development given above, taken from the application form, states that the extension is for a dependent relative. No evidence has been provided to support this as part of the planning application and reference to a dependent relative has been omitted from the subsequent description of the development on the decision notice. The Council has not assessed the proposal as a residential annexe, and I have adopted the same approach. 3. The appellant is Mr Shekhar Desphande. This differs from the name given on the planning application, as Mrs Shekhar Desphande, which has been confirmed as being the incorrect appellation. This is a procedural matter, which does not prejudice any party nor impact on the decision. 4. According to the appeal statement the proposed extension would sit around 3 feet behind the existing front boundary wall. However, both the Proposed Ground Floor and Block Plans on drawing 2310/1 show the extension immediately behind the front boundary wall. I have determined the appeal based on the drawing submitted. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 6. White Cottage (the Cottage) is a 2-storey detached building of traditional detailing to the south side of Broadbush (the B4019). It is built of white-painted brick, stone and render with pitched roofs. The appeal site is a long plot which meets Broadbush at an approximately 45-degree angle. The Cottage is situated towards the front of the plot with its rear wall against the side boundary. Its flank gable, therefore, faces Broadbush at an angle, with an irregular setback from the front Appeal Decision 6000985 2 boundary to the road. There is a single storey flat roof extension to the other flank elevation, at some distance from the front boundary. 7. The front boundary of the appeal site to Broadbush, comprises of a stone wall, currently obscured by vegetation, and a wide opening providing access to the site and giving views into and through the site, across an informal gravelled area to the front of the Cottage. 8. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential development and countryside. Opposite the appeal site, to the north of Broadbush, is a continuous high hedge, with occasional trees, which forms the rear garden boundaries of houses in the modern suburban development beyond. 9. The Cottage sits within a group of houses to the south side of Broadbush. They are predominantly 2 storey buildings with pitched roofs, from a variety of periods and built from a variety of materials. Along with the appeal site, a number of building plots meet Broadbush at an angle, some with houses aligned with the side boundaries rather than the carriageway. There is, therefore, a variety of conditions and alignments between the houses and the road, but the presence of a long grass verge in place of a footway to the south side of Broadbush is a unifying factor. This, along with the hedge to the north, gives the immediate street scene a semi-rural character, despite the heavily trafficked B-road. 10. The development is a single storey side extension to the Cottage, filling the irregularly shaped area between the flank elevation and the front boundary wall. The extension would also project forward of the front building line of the Cottage by around 2.7m and would have a flat roof, with a central rooflight. 11. The development would be visible in views along Broadbush, particularly from the east where it would be seen above the boundary wall and fences of adjacent properties. It would also be visible in views from the west, although it would be partially obscured in long views, by the neighbouring Brooklyn Lodge and House which sit closer to the carriageway than other properties. 12. The extension would be visible above the retained boundary wall to the front of the appeal site. Although it is proposed to retain the vegetation above the boundary wall, to partially screen the extension, such features are not permanent and may change over time, nor would they fully mitigate the harmful effects of the development. The drawings show that the proposed extension would be built directly behind the existing boundary wall, so it is unclear how any screening vegetation and trees on the site would be retained. 13. Buildings to the south side of Broadbush address the street frontage in a variety of ways, but the proposed extension would be the only flat roofed building or extension in the vicinity. The incongruous nature of its form would be magnified by its prominence in the semi-rural street scene due to its proximity to the front boundary. 14. The flat roof form would not relate well to the pitched roof and flank gable of the Cottage. Its prominence in views into the site would be increased by it projecting forward from, and obscuring some of, the front elevation of the Cottage; unlike the existing flat roof extension to the other flank elevation, which occupies a far less prominent position and is not visible in the street scene. Appeal Decision 6000985 3 15. Although the development would result in a flat roofed extension on both flanks of the Cottage, they would not be symmetrical or seen as such. Both extensions would have different dimensions, footprint, and fenestration patterns, so would appear different. Due to the width of the site, the front elevation would be largely viewed obliquely, and the projecting central porch would interrupt the visual connection between the two flat roofed elements. 16. The development does not accord with the Council’s Residential Alterations & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document, 2011, which advises that extensions should be in character with the main house and not result in a dominant or discordant element. It also advises that the roof shape and pitch of an extension should match and correspond with that of the host dwelling. 17. The development would, therefore, be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. It is contrary to Policies SD1 and DE1 of Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026, 2015 (the Local Plan), which together seek to ensure that development is of high-quality design and responds positively to the existing built form and context, including in their scale, form, and detailing. It is also contrary to the overarching aim of Policy 5 of the Blunsdon East Neighbourhood Plan, 2021, which seeks to preserve the character of Blunsdon Village. Other Matters 18. The development would be built utilising energy-efficient materials, triple-glazed windows, with planted wildflower meadows in front of the proposed extension, with sustainable urban drainage, and with materials to match the existing building. There would be no impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. The appellant also states that the existing boundary wall and trees will be retained, and that the site contains amenity space, car parking, and designated bin storage space. However, even when taken cumulatively these benefits would be limited in extent and would not outweigh the harm I have found on the main issue or lead me to an alternative conclusion in this case. 19. The appellant has suggested that the proposed lantern-type skylight could be replaced with a flat skylight window. However, this would not address concerns regarding the form and prominence of the development, or overcome the harm I have found on the main issue. 20. My attention has been drawn to a number of recent planning decisions by the Council for large housing developments in the area. Large housing developments are not comparable to the case before me and would have been assessed against different policies to the appeal proposals. 21. My attention has also been drawn to a number of planning applications for side extensions granted by Swindon Borough Council and development in the Council’s area allowed at appeal. These do not constitute “case law” as is suggested. Insufficient evidence has been provided to indicate how they are directly relevant to the development proposed at the appeal site, which I have determined on its own merits. 22. Reference has been made to a planning permission for a two storey extension to the Cottage granted in 2000 (S/00/1738). No details have been provided of this permission, and it has not been implemented nor is it extant. That decision Appeal Decision 6000985 4 predates the current Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, and therefore it has not been determinative to this appeal. Conclusion 23. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S Ramsden INSPECTOR