Proposed two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2026 by Alison Scott (BA Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001248 73 Hazel Dene, Carlisle CA1 3JR • 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 Ms Turk against the decision of Cumberland Council. • The application Ref is 25-0325. • The development proposed is Proposed two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council assessed development at the site for two schemes under one application and refused permission for both within one decision notice. The appellant has appealed the Council’s decision. I have examined the evidence before me and considered the proposals under both Proposal 1 for a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension, and Proposal 2 for a single storey side extension and two storey rear extension. Main Issues 3. The main issues for both are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area and effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants by way of sense of overbearing and loss of light. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is located in a planned housing estate of pairs of semi-detached and terraces of two storey houses that leads into a cul-du-sac. Number 73 is positioned close to the junction with Crossways and Hazle Dene. The appeal site sits perpendicular to Number 75 Hazel Dene. 5. With regards to Proposal 1, the extension would extend the dwelling to the side and rear by virtue of a two-storey side extension and single storey extension to the rear to provide improved living space for the occupants. This extension would add considerable bulk and mass to the dwelling as a whole, especially the two-storey side extension. The continuous ridge line and width that would be added as a two storey extension would not appear visually subordinate to the host dwelling. Therefore, it would not respond positively to its original character. Appeal Decision 6001248 2 6. Moreover, the proportionality of the dwelling would be compromised, and it would appear imbalanced in its relationship as a pair of semi’s, further emphasising its discordant appearance. 7. With regards to Proposal 2, a single storey extension and two storey rear extension is proposed. This would also add significant bulk and mass to the dwelling. It would not achieve a satisfactory visual and architectural relationship with the host dwelling appearing out of scale and proportion with the original dwelling. Therefore, it would not respect its original character and distinctiveness, 8. To conclude on this main issue, the proposals would therefore not meet the design expectations of policies SP6 and HO8 of the CDLP and the same aims included within the Achieving Well Designed Housing SPD. Living conditions 9. The rear garden of 75 Hazle Dene is a very small garden and backs onto the side garden of the appeal site. Proposal 1 would extend to the side of the appeal site and virtually fill all of the space to the side of the existing dwelling and across the width of the rear garden of 75. The outlook from the rear habitable room windows and the small garden would be onto a wide and reasonably high gable end. This would create a harmful overbearing effect on the living conditions of these occupants. 10. The single storey rear extension would extend close to the party boundary with 71 Hazel Dene. It would have a sloping roof over and whilst some brickwork would be seen from no 71’s aspect above the party boundary, I am not convinced that their outlook or living conditions would be adversely compromised. 11. With regards to Proposal 2, the extension would extend close to the party boundary with No 71, two storeys in height. A large mass of blank wall would run along the party boundary. From the rear perspective, the occupants of No 71 would be exposed to a high solid wall seen in very close quarters from habitable room windows. Therefore, given the extent of extension, its scale mass and bulk, they would experience a sense of overbearing from these windows. 12. The orientation of the extension would reduce some light levels into the neighbour’s garden from the west, and cause some overshadowing to the garden. However, this would be to a limited degree. 13. All things considered, the proposal would not meet the objectives of policies SP6 and HO8 or the CDLP and the Achieving Well Designed Housing SPD in their combines measures to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 14. The appellant points to other dwelling layouts that they consider compared to the appeal site. I went to view these. From what I could see these were planned as part of the layout of the larger estate. They are part and parcel of the houses and also low level in their form. They do not compare to the proposal before me. Therefore, I attach limited weight to these examples. 15. They also comment on a new dwelling drawing comparisons to separation distances. That site is a new build dwelling and not the same circumstances as the appeal before me. Appeal Decision 6001248 3 16. It would afford the appellant more internal space. Be that as it may, there is no compelling reason before me to overcome the harm I have identified. Balance and Conclusion 17. The two proposals to extend the dwelling have been considered. I have viewed them both as harmful to local character and appearance and to the living conditions of the adjacent occupants. 18. Therefore, this leads me to conclude that the proposed development would lead to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. Alison Scott INSPECTOR