Side two-storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 January 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by F Harrison BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001521 7 Bramley Close, Crowle, Worcester, Worcestershire WR7 4BN • 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 and Mrs Betts against the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application Ref is W/25/01214/HP. • The development proposed is a side two-storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side two-storey extension at 7 Bramley Close, Crowle, Worcester, Worcestershire WR7 4BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref W/25/01214/HP, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026) (SWDPR). The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the relevant policy identified by the Council which supersedes that listed on the decision notice. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 8 Bramley Close, having particular regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site accommodates a two-storey detached property, located on a residential cul-de-sac. The principal elevation of No 8 faces the appeal site and comprises of its front entrance and the windows that serve habitable rooms, which creates a sensitive relationship. 6. The arrangement of buildings is such that the appeal dwelling is set back from No 8. Whilst the windows at No 8 face the appeal site, its forward positioning means that the outlook from these windows is not dominated by the built form of the appeal dwelling, resulting in these windows having a relatively open outlook. The proposal would bring development at first floor height closer to No 8 and would be a Appeal Decision 6001521 2 visual change, however because of the setback of the appeal property this would not be overbearing or create a sense of enclosure, and adequate outlook from the windows at No 8 would be maintained. 7. The proposal would breach the 25-degree guidelines set out in the Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018). However, the present layout of the two dwellings is also not in accordance with this guidance. The windows at No 8 are not unduly small, are south facing and have a generally open outlook. The proposal would obscure more of the sky than the existing situation, nevertheless, taking into account the site-specific circumstances, the reduction in the amount of daylight/sunlight the windows at No 8 would receive would not be significant and would not diminish the living conditions of the occupiers. 8. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 8, having particular regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight. It would therefore accord with Policy SWDPR28 of the SWDPR. Amongst other things, this policy requires all development to provide an acceptable level of outlook, sunlight, and daylight and should not be overbearing. Conditions 9. It is necessary to impose a condition identifying the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to matching materials is also necessary. A condition to secure obscure glazing is imposed to ensure the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are protected. A condition securing the details outlined in the Water Management Strategy is imposed in the interest of drainage, and to enhance biodiversity I impose a condition to secure the implementation of a bird nesting box. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. E Clifford 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 allowed. F Harrison INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6001521 3 Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision; 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos: Plan MAB1 (location, existing and proposed block plans), Plan MAB2 (proposed sections), Plan MAB1 (proposed sections), Plan MAB3 (proposed plans), and Plan MAB3 (proposed elevations); 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building; 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the sustainable drainage system for the site has been completed in accordance with the submitted Water Management Statement. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan; 5) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until 1no bird nesting box has been installed under the eaves of the north or east facing elevation of the dwelling and shall remain as such thereafter; and 6) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window at the first-floor side elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, details of which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained as such thereafter. *** End of Conditions ***