Side double storey and rear single storey extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 January 2026 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 January 2026. Appeal Ref: 6001396 1 Rock Hill, Inkberrow WR7 4EZ • 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 & Mrs Scrafton against the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application Ref is W/25/01704/HP. • The development proposed is side double storey and rear single storey extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a detached 2-storey dwelling with a brick and render finish and a pitched tiled roof. It is situated on a visually prominent corner plot near the junction between Rock Hill and Pepper Street. Although there is some variation in the scale and design of dwellings in the vicinity, dwellings of a similar design to 1 Rock Hill (No 1), with a porch and a single-storey side projection (often containing a garage), are commonplace throughout the locality. With a number of bungalows / chalet bungalows on Pepper Street, the presence of medium-sized dwellings is a distinctive feature of the area. This includes No 1 and its adjacent neighbour directly to the east. 4. The proposed double-storey side extension would incorporate only a slight set- down from No 1’s ridge, which would do little to minimise its bulk in comparison with No 1 as existing. The extension would not incorporate a set-back from No 1’s existing front elevation, contrary to the guidance given in paragraph 8.3.3 of the SPD1 which provides that, amongst other things, design breaks e.g. step backs, can help prevent an extension appearing as a disproportionate addition over-and- above the size of the original dwelling. Hence, due to its overall size and its lack of a sufficient set-down and set-back, the double-storey side extension would constitute an addition of considerable bulk to No 1. It would not be subservient to No 1 as existing, but rather would overwhelm No 1’s existing built form. 5. For these reasons, the proposed development would be at odds with the guidance given in paragraph 8.3.3 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, the extension should be visually subordinate to, and not dominate, the original 1 South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document: Overarching Design Principles (adopted 2018) Appeal Decision 6001396 2 dwelling. Its adverse visual impact would be exacerbated by the corner position of the plot, where No 1 is prominently sited when seen from nearby public viewpoints on Pepper Street, even taking account of the space which would remain around the dwelling towards the boundaries of the plot and that No 1 sits lower than Pepper Street’s carriageway. Consequently, it would appear as an unduly dominant feature in the street scene. The use of appropriate detailed design features and materials throughout the proposed development would not overcome these adverse impacts. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result. 6. I observed all of the examples of nearby developments referred to by the appellants, although I saw that 42 Pepper Street is a different property than is shown in the photograph in the appellants’ Appeal Statement. 7. I saw that the dwellings referred to on Malthouse Crescent are not situated on corner plots, unlike the appeal site. The large 2-storey side extension to 11 Windmill Lane, although situated on a corner plot, shares notable similarities with the design of the side projection on the adjacent dwelling along Windmill Lane, which would not be the case with respect to No 1 and its respective adjacent dwelling. I observed that, unlike the proposed development, the extension at 43 Pepper Street (No 43) incorporates a set-back at first-floor level, which is particularly apparent when viewing No 43 from the side. This is also the case for 35 Pepper Street and 13 Rock Hill. As these examples are not directly comparable with the proposed development, they do not change my findings on this main issue. 8. I acknowledge that 3 Rock Hill appears to have no set-back on its side extension, with that extension having a minimal set-down from its ridge. Similarly, 12 Rock Hill has no set-back on its side extension. The lack of such design features does however mean that the balance and coherent proportions of the original dwellings have been compromised. In my view, these examples do not offer desirable precedents. The fact that these examples appear not to follow the guidance on step backs given in paragraph 8.3.3 of the SPD reinforces my findings. Additionally, as these dwellings are not situated on corner plots, their visual impact on the street scene is less than would be for the proposed development at No 1. These examples also do not change my findings on this main issue. 9. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part A. of Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (adopted 2016) (SWDP) which provides that, amongst other things, all development will be expected to be of a high design quality and reinforce local distinctiveness. Other Matters 10. The lack of objections from interested parties is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. Other Considerations and Planning Balance 11. I note that part of the design rationale relates to the opportunity to install additional solar panels, and for suitable glazing to be used with respect to passive solar gain. These matters are supported by Part B. i. of Policy SWDP 21 of the SWDP. Appeal Decision 6001396 3 However, No 1 currently has solar panels installed. Few details have been provided to illustrate the scale of any potential benefits arising from the use of additional solar panels on site and with regards to passive solar gain. 12. The proposed development would provide enlarged and enhanced accommodation, which would benefit the current and future occupiers of No 1. As this would mainly comprise a private benefit, it provides minimal support for the proposed development. 13. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. As explained on the main issue above, the proposed development would undermine this objective. The limited benefits of the proposed development, summarised above, would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR