Two-storey extension to existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 April 2026 by J Symmons BSc (Hons) CEng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004085 1 Occupation Lane, Ulceby, North Lincolnshire DN39 6SL • 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 Lloyd Milner against the decision of North Lincolnshire Council. • The application Ref is PA/2025/935. • The development proposed is a two-storey extension to existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in determination of the appeal is the effect the proposal would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Occupation Lane (No 2) by reason of outlook and privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a two‑storey, two‑bedroom end‑terrace dwelling. It has a small rear garden, which is enclosed by high fencing along the shared boundary with No 2, and a tall, planted boundary separating it from No. 11 Coronation Road (No 11). 4. The proposal would comprise a two‑storey rear extension projecting approximately 3.9 metres (m) to the shared boundary with No 2 and around 1.3m to the shared boundary with No 11. It would have a hipped roof, with its ridge set below that of the host dwelling. The elevation facing No. 11 would be entirely blank, while the elevation facing No 2 would include a first‑floor bedroom window. 5. Even with the proposal’s lowered ridge height and hip roof design, by reason of its depth, two‑storey scale and proximity to the shared boundary with No 2, it would be a large and prominent structure. Given the small size of No 2’s rear garden, the proposed extension would appear overbearing and visually dominant when experienced from this area. The presence of the high shared boundary fence and the existing single‑storey rear extensions and roofs at No 2 would do very little to mitigate this harm. As such, the proposal would harm the outlook, and enjoyment of, occupiers of No. 2 using the rear area. 6. Currently the existing first‑floor windows of the host dwelling face directly across its own rear garden and only affords side views towards No 2’s rear garden. In contrast, the proposal would introduce a first‑floor bedroom window in the side elevation which would directly face a large part of No 2’s garden. Given the Appeal Decision 6004085 2 proximity between the properties, this would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy and a heightened sense of overlooking for the occupiers of No 2. While a degree of overlooking can reasonably be expected in an urban environment, this does not justify an increase of this over existing levels, nor does it render the resulting harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers acceptable. 7. It has been suggested that the first‑floor bedroom window could be repositioned in the west‑facing elevation, potentially secured by condition, to mitigate the overlooking concern. However, this arrangement is not shown on the submitted plans and has not been consulted upon or considered by the Council or interested parties. Accordingly, as an appeal should be determined on the proposal as submitted, it would be procedurally unfair and inappropriate to take this suggested change into account. 8. A fallback position based on permitted development rights for a two‑storey rear extension has been advanced. However, little evidence has been provided in support of this and given the physical constraints of the appeal site, I am not satisfied that such a scheme would comply with all the permitted development limitations. It therefore does not represent a genuine fallback with a realistic prospect of implementation. In any event, even if it did, a permitted development extension would be limited to a depth of 3m which would be smaller, and significantly less overbearing and visually dominant than the proposal before me. As such, the fallback does not outweigh or justify the appeal proposal. 9. Taking the above together, the proposal would unacceptably affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2 with regard to outlook and privacy. It would be contrary to Policy CS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DS1 and DS5 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 which, amongst other matters, seek new development to be well designed with no unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring land and dwellings. Other Matters 10. The appellant asserts that the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the area. Even if that were the case, this would not address or justify the harm identified to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2. 11. The appellant also contends that the host dwelling’s internal staircase is steep and hazardous, and that the proposal would enable the creation of a modern family home, thereby improving the quality of the locality. However, notwithstanding these are personal benefits to the appellant, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the existing accommodation is unsafe or fails to provide a reasonable standard of living within the context of the area. It has therefore not been sufficiently demonstrated that these personal circumstances justify the harm the proposal would cause to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 12. Although no objections have been raised, the absence of representations does not indicate that a proposal is acceptable. I am required to assess the appeal on its own merits and have identified unacceptable harm. 13. The use of planning conditions relating to matters such as materials or external finishes would not address the design impacts on the occupants of No 2 and would not mitigate the identified harm. Appeal Decision 6004085 3 14. Reference has been made to the presence of existing two‑storey rear extensions in the area, including at No. 4 Occupation Lane. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these developments are directly comparable to the proposal before me in terms of siting, scale or impact. In any event, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits and, for the reasons set out above, have found that it would result in harm. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and considering all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Symmons INSPECTOR