First floor extension over existing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 December 2025 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001023 29 Gladstone Road, Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL1 5HN • 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 Phil Hanman against the decision of Gloucester City Council. • The application Ref is 25/00459/FUL. • The development proposed is a first floor extension over existing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 27 and 31 Gladstone Road (No 27 and No 31) with particular regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal building is a two-storey dwelling attached to No 27. It has been extended at ground floor to the rear, which the proposal would sit atop. This extension abuts the shared boundary. There is a walkway gap between the appeal building and No 31. Due to the proximity of the proposal to neighbouring gardens and rear windows, the scheme would be visible to occupiers of both Nos 27 and 31. 5. Whilst it would not increase the footprint of the appeal building, the proposed development would present a high sided, sheer and featureless elevation to the immediate rear of No 27 and the part of the garden closest to the rear of the house. Users of this space would experience an increased sense of enclosure, unacceptably harming enjoyment thereof. The wider garden appears to be is well used and is modestly scaled, which would accordingly feel smaller by virtue of the scheme, should users then have to relocate any sitting out space. 6. Although there would be an increase in height and bulk to the resultant building and the scheme would bring it perceptibly closer to the boundary, the current separation distance between Nos 29 and 31 means the overall proposal would not harmfully impinge on the users of the garden to No 31. Their outlook would remain largely unchanged given the surrounding built up context. Appeal Decision 6001023 2 7. This would however be a lack of harm and insufficient to outweigh the adverse effects the scheme would bring to bear on the occupiers of no 27 in the manner I have described. This would lead to conflict with Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan 2023, Policies SD4 and SD14 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2017, The Council’s Home Extension Guide 2008 and the relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected. Other Matters 8. The Council state that the proposal would not have an impact on the light perceived by the occupiers within the building and garden of No 27 based on the daylight assessment submitted and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusion. This however does not equate to a lack of harm to outlook since they are separate matters. Additionally, the appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s handling of the application and that they had not conducted their own surveys to support points raised. However, I am satisfied that the evidence and officer report submitted is sufficient to express their objections to the appeal scheme. Additional information is not required or possible during the householder planning appeal process. 9. I appreciate that there is a familial need for the proposal, however, it is not sufficiently clear that the proposed development is the only way of meeting the increased internal space requirements. I therefore attach moderate weight to this personal need. This would be insufficient to make the scheme acceptable given I ascribe the greater weight to the potential harm I have found (which would be significant and enduring) and the subsequent development plan conflict. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR