Side and rear extension and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 by K Mansell BA (Hons) MPhil TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:17 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004291 Wildflower Cottage, Thorne Road, Hatfield, Doncaster DN7 6EN • 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 Mantella against the decision of City of Doncaster Council. • The application Ref is 25/01638/FUL. • The development proposed is side and rear extension and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The address given on the application form refers to the appeal property as ‘Wildflower Cottage, Crook Tree Lane DN7 6EW’. However, in the banner heading above, I have referred to it as ‘Wildflower Cottage, Thorne Road DN7 6EN’ as this is the address given on a combination of the Council’s decision notice, the list of those notified of the appeal and on the appellant’s case submission. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached two-storey dwelling set within a generous plot at the corner of Crook Tree Lane and its junction with Thorne Road. The house occupies a reasonably central position within the plot, generously set back from Thorne Road behind mature planting. Open fields lie opposite the site to the north, east and south. To the west, along Crook Tree Lane, it adjoins a detached dormer bungalow similarly set within a generous plot. Some further dwellings lie to the south-east, fronting Thorne Road. These are also set well back from the road in reasonably long linear plots. The spacious setting of these properties contributes positively to the open semi-rural character of the area. 5. The existing dwelling is a modest two-bedroom house that has previously been extended at ground floor level with a porch and single storey additions to the side and rear. There are some further single storey outbuildings within the garden. The appeal scheme would remove the existing projections to facilitate the construction of a two-storey side extension to the south facing elevation, a two-storey side/rear Appeal Decision 6004291 2 extension to the north facing elevation, a single storey rear projection, a front porch and replacement chimney stacks. 6. Within the Doncaster Local Plan (2015–2035) (Adopted 2021) (DLP), the appeal site lies within the Countryside Policy Area (CPA). Part 2 of Policy 25 of the DLP supports extensions to existing dwellings in the CPA where specific criteria at A-B and D-G are met. The Council consider that the appeal scheme would comply with A, B, D and E and from my observations of site, I have no reason to disagree. 7. However, Part 2 (F) of Policy 25 limits the cumulative volume increase of extensions within the CPA to 40% above that of the existing building. Paragraphs 9.7–9.9 of the supporting text to Policy 25 clarify that ‘original’ existing development in this context refers to the dwelling as first constructed, or, for homes built before 1 July 1948, as it existed on that date, and that the 40% limit should take account of all previous extensions, alterations, and outbuildings. This approach is clarified further in guidance within the Council’s Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document (2024) (RD SPD). 8. The Council estimate that the appeal scheme would result in a volume increase of approximately 200% against the original cottage, based on excluding the existing extensions. I have not, however, been provided with the detailed calculations underpinning this figure. From what I saw on site, I consider that the small red brick WC/store to the immediate rear of the house formed part of the original existing building. However, whilst I saw the outbuildings on my site visit, I have no substantive evidence before me to suggest that these would fall within the definition of original existing development. Therefore, from my observations on site and the plans before me, taking into account the scale and extent of the appeal scheme, I am satisfied that its combined volume would nonetheless result in a cumulative increase in excess of 40% above that of the existing building. It would therefore conflict with criterion (F) of Policy 25. 9. Moreover, the appeal proposal would include two-storey extensions to both sides of the dwelling. Whilst the addition to the south facing elevation would be marginally set back with a lowered ridge, the extension to the opposite side would largely follow the existing building line and only a small section would have a lower ridge height compared to the main house. Notwithstanding the use of matching materials and fenestration, the cumulative effect of these side extensions would be to more than double the width of the original house. Combined with the additional extensions, the appeal scheme would consequently be unsympathetic in scale and form to the host dwelling. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the significant increase in footprint and massing, the appeal scheme would substantially alter the scale and proportion of the host dwelling to the extent that it would be largely unrecognisable. Even if the front of the house would be screened from Thorne Road by mature planting, it would nonetheless remain somewhat evident from the roadside, particularly when travelling along Thorne Road in a northerly direction. It would also be visible from Crook Tree Lane. From my observations on site, the resultant appeal scheme would be significantly larger than the scale and form of properties nearby. It would consequently be visually incongruous and fail to respond positively to the character of the area, consequently causing harm to the countryside. Appeal Decision 6004291 3 11. The appellant has drawn my attention to a potential fall-back scenario having regard to Classes A, AA and D of Part 1, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). This would include an 8-metre single storey stepped rear extension having regard to Class A.1(g), a first-floor rear extension under Class A.1(h), a side extension under Class A.1(j), the construction of up to 2 additional storeys having regard to Class AA and a front porch under Class D. The appellant contends that these additions would amount to a volume increase that would also be in excess of the 40% permitted under Policy 25 Part 2 (F) and greater than the appeal scheme. 12. However, for development to be permitted under Classes AA and A.1(g), it would be subject to a prior approval process. I cannot assume that objections would not be received, or that prior approval would be granted. Furthermore, I have not been advised of any prior approval consent or certificate of lawfulness issued in relation to the entire development indicated in the overview of potential extensions. I am therefore not persuaded that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that permitted development rights would be exercised in this way, or that such a fallback would be pursued if the appeal is dismissed. I attach limited weight to it as a result. 13. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policy 25, with particular regard to Part 2 (f) and (g) and Policies 41, 42 and 44 of the DLP (2021). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to limit the volume of extensions to existing buildings in the countryside to ensure that additions do not have a detrimental visual impact on the character of the building or the surrounding area, to ensure high quality design, and to respond positively to local character and context, including the host dwelling. It would further conflict with the general design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusion 14. The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would indicate a decision otherwise would be appropriate. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K. Mansell INSPECTOR