Two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by J Buxton BA(Hons) DipArch ARB RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004395 3 Norton Grove, Kingston upon Hull HU4 6HG • 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 David Godbold against the decision of Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council. • The application reference is 25/00790/FULL. • The development proposed is a two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension at 3 Norton Grove, Kingston upon Hull HU4 6HG in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/00790/FULL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house with a hipped roof, situated on the southern side of Norton Grove. The surrounding area is residential in character and comprises a mix of bungalows and two-storey dwellings which appear to have been developed in different phases. This was evident on my site visit and has resulted in a varied and eclectic street scene, with modern additions sitting alongside older housing stock. There is an existing detached garage to the side of the house. Parking is available on the frontage and within the garage. 4. The proposed extension would include at ground floor, a large garage to the side with a kitchen extension to the rear along with a bedroom and ensuite at first floor. The existing garage, which occupies a broadly similar position to the proposed extension, would be removed as part of the development. As the new ground-floor element would be sited in a comparable location, its relationship with the boundary would not differ significantly from the current arrangement. 5. When viewed from the road the proposed hipped roof would reduce the perceived bulk of the proposed extension, and the stepped form at first floor would further reduce its overall massing. Although the inclusion of the garage within the proposed footprint would result in a wide frontage, the extension would be subordinate to the existing dwelling in both height and width, and would be set back from the existing front elevation. It would also incorporate windows which are of Appeal Decision 6004395 2 similar proportions to those on the existing dwelling. The design is therefore generally proportionate to the existing dwelling, in accordance with the guidance set out in SPD1: Designing a House Extension. As a result, the proposed development would not appear overly dominant within the street scene. 6. The reason for refusal refers to the symmetrical appearance of the pair of semi-detached houses. However, it is common for one half of a semi-detached property to be extended, and such extensions frequently result in a degree of asymmetry. In this case, and noting the varied character of the street, any resulting imbalance would not cause material harm to the appearance of the dwelling or the pair as a whole. 7. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the wider street scene. It would accord with Policies 14 and 22 of the Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 which, among other things, seek to ensure development is well designed and appropriate to its surroundings, while managing home extensions so they remain subordinate and respect local character. Other Matters 8. A letter submitted by the appellant refers to their personal health circumstances and their desire to use the proposed garage to house a collector’s car. However, such matters have not influenced the planning considerations in this case. My decision to allow the appeal is based solely on the planning merits of the proposal as set out above. Conditions 9. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit, plans and materials conditions are necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty. 10. I note the Council’s suggested conditions with regard to finished floor levels (FFL’s) and surface water drainage. I am satisfied that these measures are both necessary and reasonable in safeguarding the development against existing and future flood risk of the area, and I have included conditions on that basis. The Council’s officer report clarifies that the requirement for FFLs to be no lower than those of the existing house applies only to the kitchen/breakfast room part of the ground floor extension, and not the garage. I am satisfied that this approach would adequately address flood risk issues at the property, and have amended the suggested condition accordingly. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. J Buxton INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6004395 3 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s • Location Plan • GSA/0825/239(2) - Proposed Extension and Alterations • GSA/0825/239(3) Rev A - Block Plans - Existing and Proposed 3) No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) The finished ground floor level of the living accommodation hereby approved shall be no lower than the existing finished ground floor of the dwelling. 5) Prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use, surface water drainage (i.e. water from the roof and any new hard surfaced areas) shall be installed by way of a domestic/small scale sustainable drainage system which should comprise either: a) a water butt of not less than 100-litre capacity; or b) a rain garden to provide at least a 100-litre capacity; or c) a combination of (a) and (b) to at least/no less than a 100-litre capacity; or d) any other sustainable drainage system to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before installation. The system shall thereafter be retained and maintained in working condition. End of Conditions