Demolition of garage and erection of two storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2026 by S Ramsden BSc (Hons) MA MA IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 February 2026. Appeal Ref: 6003307 40 Roman Road, Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL4 5HR • 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 Shannon Witts against the decision of Gloucester City Council. • The application reference is 25/00957/FUL. • The development proposed is the demolition of garage and erection of two storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and, • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of 42 Roman Road. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a modern, two-storey detached dwelling set back from Roman Road, with a double garage to the front of the property. The house sits at the end of a row of three dwellings that are similar in appearance and design. They are closely spaced and sit on a comparable building line, and to the front they have driveway and car parking areas open to the street. To the west of 40 Roman Road (No 40) is a footpath leading to development beyond. 4. The appeal site is in an established residential area, comprising properties of similar design, materials, and scale. The area has an informal street pattern, but there is a general uniformity to the built form, of closely spaced dwellings set back from the road, with open front areas. 5. The existing garage is separate to the main house, and is approximately perpendicular to both the road and house. The proposed development is for the replacement of the double garage with a two storey extension to the front of and at a right angle to the main house. On plan it would extend across a significant proportion of the front elevation of the main house. 6. The proposed extension would have a double pitched roof with its ridge slightly below, and perpendicular to, that of the host dwelling. The ridge line would not Appeal Decision 6003307 2 meet with the roof slopes of the main house and would be set towards the rear of the extension, resulting in a large roof slope to its east elevation. It would have a blank, asymmetrical flank gable in close proximity to front boundary to Roman Road. The rear elevation of the extension would be a blank two-storey wall backing onto the public footpath to the west of No 40. 7. The proposed extension would be highly visible in views from the east along Roman Road, particularly given the open nature of the gardens and driveways to the front of the short row of houses of which No 40 forms a part. The location of the existing garage, to the front of the houses, is an anomaly within this group of buildings and its replacement with a larger extension would both replicate and exacerbate this incongruity. 8. The prominence of the proposed extension, in views from the east, would be a function not just of its greater volume but also its greater proximity to the front boundary. The lack of visual interest, of three garage doors, to the ground floor would add to the detrimental visual impact of the development. 9. From the west the proposed extension would be screened to some degree, but not entirely, by adjacent properties and the semi-mature trees to the end of the footpath as it meets Roman Road. However, the trees are outside the appeal site and planted features are not permanent, may change seasonally or over time. The proposed extension would, though, present a large and visually unrelieved two- storey brick wall to the public footpath in immediate views. Additionally, the proposed extension would present an unrelieved, asymmetrical end gable to the street frontage. 10. Given its position to the front of the main house, and its scale, the proposed extension would be a competing, if not dominant, addition to the host dwelling. The steepness of roof pitch, in comparison to the host building, would be visually discordant. By virtue of its asymmetrical roof form, and the relationship of the ridge line with the main building, the form of the extension would appear both contrived and unresolved. It would not, therefore, appear as a well designed addition to the host dwelling and would not respond positively to its immediate context and the surrounding area. 11. The proposed development does not accord with advice in the Gloucester City Council Home Extension Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2008. It advises that extensions should respect the character of the existing property and be fully integrated into the design so that it appears as part of the original house. It also advises that extensions must be of a design, size and scale that is appropriate and respectful to the character of the locality. 12. For the reasons given above, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy, (the Core Strategy) 2017, and Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan, (the City Plan) 2023. Taken together these seek to deliver high quality development which responds positively to, and respects the character of, the site and its surroundings. Appeal Decision 6003307 3 Living conditions 13. The proposed extension is to the front of, and at a right angle to, the building line of the host building and its immediate neighbours. The extension would have three dormer windows at first floor level to its east elevation. These would directly overlook the amenity space to the front of both 42 and 44 Roman Road (Nos 42 and 44). The dormer windows would also potentially have views, albeit obliquely, to windows to the front elevations of those properties. 14. Overlooking issues would be most pronounced with regards to the ground and first floor windows of No 42, which are closest to the shared boundary with No 40, from the proposed dormer window closest to Roman Road. The dormer windows would be to a habitable first floor room, and it is understood that the relevant windows to No 42 are also to habitable rooms. 15. Given the oblique angle and the distance between windows, there would be very limited intervisibility between habitable rooms and, therefore, the proposed development would have limited impact on the living conditions of the occupants of No 42. Although there may be a perception of an increase in overlooking, to both outdoor amenity space and windows, there would not be a significant material difference to the current condition. 16. For these reasons, the development would not result in undue harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 42 Roman Road. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy SD14 of the Core Strategy or Policies A1 and A9 of the City Plan, which taken together seek to ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are not unduly harmed by development as a result of overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing development. Similarly, I find no conflict with advice in the SPD. Other Matters 17. The appellant states that the proposed development would improve the functionality and quality of the existing property and make more efficient use of the amenity space to the front of the property. These are benefits which weigh in favour, but this does not justify the harm I have found in this case. Conclusion 18. 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 dismissed. S Ramsden INSPECTOR