For a proposed rear single storey extension and proposed garage conversion with front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2026 by S Ramsden BSc (Hons) MA IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002879 28 Fenton Road, Hollywood, Worcestershire B47 5LS • 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 Mike Zange against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council. • The application reference is 25/00873/FUL. • The development is for a proposed rear single storey extension and proposed garage conversion with front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed garage conversion with front extension. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to the rear single storey extension at 28 Fenton Road, Hollywood, Worcestershire B47 5LS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00873/FUL, and the information submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 90042-04-01, 90042-05-04 and 90042-05-05. Main Issue 3. The Council raised no concerns in respect of the proposed rear single-storey extension. On the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a brick built semi-detached house, of two stories with an integral garage to the front elevation. It is situated in an established post-war housing estate comprising groups of two storey houses and bungalows. The semi- detached houses are of a similar form and materials, although there is a degree of variety in the widths and treatment of front elevations. They are, however, predominantly brick built with similar fenestration patterns, such as having projecting bay windows incorporating small areas of render. Appeal Decision 6002879 2 5. Whilst many properties in the area retain their original form, a number of the two storey properties have side or small front extensions. The front extensions vary in size and design, although most are of brick and have relatively simple roof forms, which relate successfully to the host dwellings. 6. The Council’s High Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2019, advises that extensions should be subordinate to the host building and should be well designed, in such a way to avoid them becoming a central feature of the building. Although the proposed front extension would be subordinate in scale, its siting on the principal elevation, its contrasting rendered finish, and design, including the gable feature, would result in a dominant and discordant addition. The proposed development would not therefore be a well-designed extension and one which would relate successfully to the host dwelling and the surrounding street scene. It would conflict with the SPD and paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to promote development that is well designed and reflects local design policies. 7. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of front extensions which have been approved in the vicinity. A substantial number of these were approved prior to the adoption of the current SPD, or the Framework, and those decisions were made in a different policy context. Furthermore, the appellant has highlighted that some alterations put forward in evidence fall outside the requirement for planning permission, such as replacing a garage door with a window. There are a variety of front and side extensions in the vicinity, however, most have a relatively simple form and incorporate limited areas of render; nor are they a defining characteristic of the area. 8. Specific attention has been drawn to nearby 22 Heath Road which has been extended in a similar manner to that proposed. I have not been provided with full details of that planning application; however, from the evidence submitted it would appear to have been approved in a different form to that currently in place. I saw on my site visit that front extensions, such as that proposed, are very much in the minority and I observed that poorly designed front extensions can result in a dominant feature that can have harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, which should not be seen as setting a precedent. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits. 9. For these reasons, the proposed front extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy BDP19 of the Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030, adopted 2017, which seeks to ensure high quality development that enhances the character and distinctiveness of the local area. Conditions 10. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring materials to match those used on the existing dwelling in order to maintain the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6002879 3 Conclusion 11. The proposal comprises two distinct elements: (i) a rear single‑storey extension, and (ii) a garage conversion with a front extension. The Council’s concerns relate solely to the second component. The evidence before me shows that the rear extension is physically and functionally independent from the works proposed to the front of the dwelling. It could be implemented in isolation without giving rise to an incoherent or unusable internal arrangement. I am therefore satisfied that this part of the scheme is severable and capable of being granted planning permission independently of the disputed elements. 12. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the single-storey rear extension and dismissed insofar as it relates to the garage conversion with front extension. S Ramsden INSPECTOR