Extension to dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2026 by K Hole BA (Hons) Decision by J Hills MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002150 6 Shadwell, Uley, Gloucestershire GL11 5BW • 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 Tony Mills against the decision of Stroud District Council. • The application Ref is S.25/1651/HHOLD. • The development proposed is described as “extension to dwelling”. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. I have taken the description of development from the application form. However, the Council has provided a more accurate description namely, “erection of a two- storey front, side and rear extension including rear terrace” which I have had regard to for the purposes of assessing the appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a multi-level detached dwelling located within the village of Uley. Nearby dwellings are generally detached and while they vary in size and scale, there is a predominance of simple pitched gable-end roof forms and use of local Cotswold limestone, which together contribute to the traditional character of the area. 6. The extension would project towards and marginally overhang the eastern boundary, however as the flank wall would be stepped in towards the rear it would go some way towards diminishing perceived bulk. Together with the eaves level that would remain unchanged and the highest part of the proposed roof sitting well below the existing ridge, the scale and mass of the extension would appear subservient to the host dwelling. Furthermore, the materials proposed would reflect the local vernacular. Appeal Decision 6002150 2 7. However, while the existing roof has a simple pitched gable-end design, the proposed extension would introduce a more complex roof form with ridges that are set at different heights. Its hipped design would also conceal much of the traditional gable to the eastern elevation. This untypical arrangement would create a visually discordant and poorly integrated addition to the property. 8. Moreover, while front and rear garden space would be maintained, the extended dwelling would nevertheless consume much of the plot’s overall width, making it unsympathetically cramped. In that context, given the proximity to the eastern boundary, and positioning of the property above the road below, the eye would be drawn to the prominence and incongruity of the extension. For the reasons given, the proposal would not add to the overall quality of the area. 9. In conclusion, the proposal would have a harmful effect the character and appearance of the area and would therefore not comply with policies HC8, and CP14 of the Stroud District Local Plan (2015). Amongst other things, these policies require the height, scale, form and design of extensions to be in keeping with the scale and character of original dwelling and the wider setting. Other Matters 10. The site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape (NL). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes (formerly known as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). I am also conscious of my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty of the NL. 11. The effect of the proposal on the landscape is not a matter in dispute between the main parties. Nevertheless, the National Planning Policy Framework also requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL. Notwithstanding my conclusion under the main issue, given its domestic scale, and that the development would sit amongst the existing built form at 6 Shadwell, I am satisfied that the wider landscape and the scenic beauty of the NL would be conserved. 12. I am aware that 5 Shadwell which is located near to the appeal site is a Grade II Listed Building. Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act) require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Given the intervening space and the offset position, the proposal would not be harmful to the immediate setting or experience of the listed building. This is also not a matter of dispute between the main parties. Nevertheless, an absence of harm in that particular regard does not overcome my concerns in respect of the main issue. 13. The support of the parish council is noted, though this is not a reason to allow unacceptable development. Additionally, I have paid regard to the comments made in respect of the processing of the application, though these have no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the proposal. Appeal Decision 6002150 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. K Hole APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. J Hills INSPECTOR