2 storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 February 2026 by Rachel Standfield BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 March 2026. Appeal Ref: 6003186 28 Mayfield Road, Worcester WR3 8NT • 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 Ian Oliver against the decision of Worcester City Council. • The application Reference is 25/00642/HP. • The development proposed is 2 storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I have removed the reference ‘to add kitchen and bathroom’ from the description of development as set out in the banner because this is superfluous. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 26 Mayfield Road with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a three-storey dwelling in a residential neighbourhood. It sits within a terrace of twelve narrow dwellings which present as two storeys to the front with a lower ground level which opens to the rear gardens. Many of the other dwellings in this part of Mayfield Road feature rear extensions of varying scales and forms. The proposed development would replace a dilapidated single- storey kitchen / w.c. with a full width, two-storey extension with mono pitched roof. 5. The proposed width (encompassing the full rear elevation), depth and roof shape at the proposed height, would result in significant bulk so as to be visually dominant when viewed both from the rear against the backdrop of the terrace and as a projection from neighbouring dwellings. As such, the scale of the extension would be disproportionate and harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 6. There are other two and three storey extensions on houses in the vicinity of the site. However, in general they do not extend across the full width of the plot and Appeal Decision 6003186 2 utilise different roof structures with shallower pitch to limit visual impact. Thus, they are not directly comparable and neither do they provide a precedent for the visual harm which would result from the proposed development. 7. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (the Local Plan) which expects all development to be of a high design quality as determined by stated objectives including scale, height and massing. The proposed development would also conflict with the South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD) which supports the Local Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to ensure that development is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. Living Conditions 8. Number 26 Mayfield Road has an existing single storey rear extension of a similar depth which adjoins the shared boundary with the appeal site. Original rear elevation fenestration comprises a single modest sized window to each of the upper ground and first floors. The Council’s policies and guidance to ensure privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight are applicable. 9. The Council has completed an assessment using the 45o and 25o codes as described in the SPD. The submitted plans identify that the upper ground floor rear window of 26 Mayfield Road is the sole window serving a living room. The assessment demonstrates that the introduction of the proposed built form at such proximity to this window will noticeably reduce the openness and daylight currently experienced. 10. The dwellings within the terrace are constructed at an angle, extending from the front elevations as a parallelogram and then straightening up to the rear gardens within which any extensions sit. The plans indicate that the impact to openness and light would be exacerbated by the angle so that when viewed from inside, the proposed extension would appear to be angled towards the window, leading to an enhanced sense of enclosure. As such, the proposed development will be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 26 Mayfield Road by way of loss of outlook and light. 11. Number 26 Mayfield Road is owned by a close family member of the appellant. The appeal submission states that any overshadowing impact would be acceptable to them. However, the development plan makes provision for ensuring appropriate living conditions for neighbouring occupiers which is consistent with national and local guidance. I am therefore obliged to consider the public interest and living conditions of future occupiers in this respect and their statement does not address the impact that I have found. 12. For the above reasons, the proposed extension would be contrary to Policy SWDP21 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure no unacceptable impact on living conditions resulting from new development. It would also conflict with the SPD and the NPPF which both require living conditions of neighbouring occupiers to be preserved. Appeal Decision 6003186 3 Other Matters 13. The proposed development has the potential to stabilise the adjoining building and to improve the facilities available to the occupiers of the site. However, it has not been demonstrated that the appeal scheme is the only means by which these outcomes could be achieved or that there is no alternative which would be less harmful in respect of its visual impact or effect on living conditions. Therefore, this factor attracts limited weight in favour of the appeal and does not outweigh the harm in respect of the main issues. 14. The appeal submission references communication issues between the Council and the agent / appellant during the planning application process however this is not a matter for my resolution in the context of a planning appeal. Conclusion 15. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. Rachel Standfield INSPECTOR