Development proposed is: Demolition of existing conservatory and garage. Erection of front/side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001374 12A Fields Drive, Aslockton, Nottinghamshire, NG13 9AG • 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 Miss Mami Okubo and Mr Simon Thurston against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01280/FUL. • The development proposed is: Demolition of existing conservatory and garage. Erection of front/side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscape. Reasons 3. The appeal site consists of a detached bungalow located on a cul-de-sac of a pleasant suburban character. The streetscape includes a mixture of bungalows and 2-storey dwellings of various designs, although the appeal site is one of a number of bungalows located to the south of Fields Drive. The extent of bungalows which contains the appeal site are arranged in a gentle curve along the streetscape. However, even allowing for the curved arrangement and the variations in design of the bungalows, the building line is relatively strong. 4. The appeal proposal includes a pitched roof extension projecting to the front of the existing dwelling. This would project further forward than the existing elements to the front of the dwelling that are proposed for removal, and would be more than half the width of the front elevation of the main building. Due to the scale and projection of the extension this would appear as an overdominant addition to the building and an obtrusive projection into the streetscape. 5. There are varying designs of bungalows in the streetscape, including projections to the front. However, the existing projections are of a limited scale, and due to its width and projection the proposed front extension would be an incongruous and over-prominent feature even within the context of the varying designs of dwellings. Although the ridge of the roof would be lower than that of the host dwelling and the pitch of the roof would match the main roof, these factors would not be sufficient to mitigate for the width and projection of the front extension. Appeal Decision 6001374 2 6. The appellants refer to existing and approved extensions in the area which project closer to the pavement than the appeal proposal. However, the properties at 1 and 3 Field Drive are corner plots and are not part of a building line of an extent and form comparable to the appeal site. Reference is also made to a number of other modernised buildings in the area, although these are not a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. There are examples of a gable or secondary gable facing the highway on other properties, but these are not of a similar scale, form and projection as the appeal proposal in this extent of the streetscape. The circumstances of the other properties are therefore materially different to the appeal proposal, which I have determined on its own merits. 7. I am mindful that the proposal would improve the accommodation for the appellants’ family and that the extension has been designed to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents. However, these factors are either a private benefit or relate to a lack of harm, and carry only limited weight in favour of the appeal. 8. I also note that a number of comments from nearby residents have been submitted in support of the proposal. However, these do not lead me to a different conclusion on the harm arising from the proposal based on my own observations. 9. I therefore conclude that, due to its scale and projection, the proposal would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the streetscape. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the design and local identity requirements of Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 and Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with regards to achieving well designed places. 10. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the Rushcliffe Residential Design Guide. However, based on the evidence before me this has been superseded by the Rushcliffe Design Code 2025 (the Design Code). That said, the proposal would conflict with the advice of the Design Code with regards to responding positively to the pattern and grain of development. 11. Within the terms of the appellants’ Appeal Statement, the significant harm arising from the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including with regard to well-designed places. Due to the harm to character and appearance it would not make effective use of land. Although the proposal may be in a sustainable location and would provide affordable accommodation for the appellants, these benefits carry limited weight due to the limited increase in accommodation provided by the proposal and would not outweigh the identified harm. 12. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR