Loft extension and refurbishment

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 April 2026 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004470 110 Kingscourt Lane, Stroud GL5 3PX • 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 Chantal Jenkins against the decision of Stroud District Council. • The application Ref is S.25/2145/HHOLD. • The development proposed is loft extension and refurbishment. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for loft extension and refurbishment at 110 Kingscourt Lane Stroud GL5 3PX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S.25/2145/HHOLD, subject to the following 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 nos: Location Plan dated 5 November 2025; Proposed Floor Plans PL01_02 Rev C; Proposed Elevations PL01_06 Rev C; Block Plan PL01_00 Rev B. 3) No air source heat pump shall be installed until details of its siting, appearance, and acoustic specification 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 and thereafter retained. 4) All works shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations contained in the Protected Species Report for Bats and Nesting Birds and Nocturnal Bat Survey Report by Cotswold Environmental (May 2025). Thereafter, the development shall be retained as such. 5) The flat roof area to the rear of the dwelling as shown on Proposed Floor Plans PL01_02 Rev C and Proposed Elevations PL01_06 Rev C shall not be used as a balcony, roof terrace, or any other form of external amenity space at any time. Access to the flat roof shall be for maintenance purposes only, and it shall not be altered to provide any means of sitting out, recreation, or regular access. Main Issue 2. The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6004470 2 Reasons 3. The appeal property is situated near the top of a steep hill, a factor which appears to have influenced its design. From the front, the building presents as a single- storey dwelling with a parapet wall; however, due to the significant fall in ground level, its height increases towards the rear. This arrangement is characteristic of many properties along this section of Kingscourt Lane, although there is considerable variation in architectural style, scale and materials. Cotswold stone and lighter buff brick are prevalent, alongside a substantial number of rendered dwellings. There is also a group of Victorian terraces nearby constructed in red brick and rendered. A consistent feature within the street scene is the presence of brick boundary walls abutting the pavement. Owing to the steep gradient of the hill, ridge heights vary notably, a disparity further emphasised by differing roof forms. Whilst the appeal properties existing combination of a hipped roof with parapet wall and a flat roof is not typical, in the wider context, there is little overall consistency in roof and building heights and so it does not appear out of character. 4. The proposal would involve increasing the height of the walls by approximately 1 metre and replacing the hipped roof with a front-facing gabled roof, alongside an increase to the height of the flat roof. Given the modest increase in overall height, the resulting ridge height of the gabled roof would not appear disproportionately tall when compared with neighbouring dwellings, particularly in a street characterised by variations in roof and wall heights. Furthermore, the increased wall height would be comparable to that of nearby two-storey properties, and, in this context, the increased scale would not appear discordant. The front elevation would continue to read as single storey in scale, albeit with a taller roof incorporating a front-facing gable, a feature similar to that of the neighbouring single-storey dwelling. 5. The narrow yet deep plan form of the house gives it an elongated appearance, which would be marginally accentuated by the increased height. However, given the diversity of building forms in the locality, this would not be so unusual as to result in visual harm. Towards the rear, the property would have relatively tall walls. However, the use of a flat roof in this area would limit the perceived bulk, ensuring the rear of the property would not appear visually discordant when seen alongside neighbouring properties or the host dwelling itself. Overall, the scale of the extended building would not appear out of character within its wider context. As the proposal broadly replicates the existing split roof arrangement and introduces only a modest increase in height, the wall-to-roof proportions would remain balanced. The proposed solar panels would be sited close to the eaves of one side of the pitched part of the roof and thus installed following the roof profile. Taking into account the size of the roof and the proposed openings and solar panels within it, the roof would not appear cluttered. 6. The appeal property occupies a relatively small plot, although this is not readily apparent from the public realm due to the screening effect of the appeal property and surrounding buildings and the boundary treatments. Importantly, the proposal would not increase the footprint of the dwelling. Given the modest increase in height, the development would not result in the property appearing more cramped within its plot than in the existing situation. 7. The proposal includes the provision of a boundary wall, thereby retaining a defining feature of the local area. The use of stone slips would also reflect Appeal Decision 6004470 3 materials common to nearby properties and, when read alongside the concrete lintel and the large front window and door, would add visual interest to the front elevation. Above the lintel and across the remainder of the building, a grey render is proposed. Nearby there are grey rendered properties in differing shades of grey and other colours. As such, there is variation in the colour of houses locally and the proposed grey render would not necessarily appear out of character, and in light of this a property in a darker shade would not necessarily cause significant harm to the character of the wider area. 8. The Council has confirmed that the proposed changes to the windows would be acceptable, and I see no reason to differ from that conclusion. Concerns were raised regarding the full-height window on the rear elevation; however, given the limited number of rear openings and the overall scale of the extended building, the window would not appear oversized. Variation in window size is evident throughout the surrounding area, and the proposal would not be unusual in this respect. 9. Whilst it is recognised that the building may have evolved from an earlier commercial use, it is not a designated heritage asset, nor is it identified as a non- designated heritage asset. The assessment therefore focuses on its contribution to the character and appearance of the area. While certain existing features, such as the parapet wall and hipped roof, would be lost, the retention of elements including the split roof profile, the boundary wall and the elongated form of the building would ensure that key characteristics of the host dwelling remain legible. Overall, although the appearance of the building would change, its character would be preserved, and the development would not harm the character or appearance of the street scene. 10. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential internal alteration of the property to include a third bedroom and whether this might lead to overdevelopment of the plot. Such works are not shown on the submitted plans, and my assessment is confined to the scheme before me, rather than hypothetical future changes. As already concluded, the proposed development would not result in overdevelopment of the site. 11. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. As a result, it would comply with Policies HC8, CP14 and ES12 of the Stroud District Local Plan. These seek, amongst other matters, for the height, scale and design of extensions to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its wider setting. Other Matters 12. The Grade II listed Olde Pounde House, together with the nearby Grade II listed Cobblers Cottage and Pendle Cottage, are substantially sized buildings constructed from Cotswold stone and set back from the road behind stone boundary walls and landscaped gardens opposite the appeal property. Their architectural detailing contributes significantly to their heritage significance. The setting of these listed buildings encompasses the appeal property and its neighbouring dwellings. Given the elevated position of the listed buildings, their outlook also extends across the valley below, encompassing the appeal site and surrounding development. Although the proposal would increase the height of the appeal property, the notable differences in ground levels between the listed Appeal Decision 6004470 4 building and the appeal property would ensure that the development would not result in an enclosing or harmful effect on the outlook from these heritage assets. For the reasons given above, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area and as a result it would preserve the setting of the listed buildings and the contribution that setting makes to their significance. 13. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for the proposed extension to give rise to an overbearing relationship with 120 Kingscourt Lane (No. 120), including loss of privacy, outlook and light arising from the increased height of the rear elevation and the differing ground levels between the properties. 14. A rear window at the appeal property already overlooks neighbouring properties, including No. 120, resulting in views over its garden, patio, and rear rooms although No. 110 is partly at an angle to No. 120 which limits the views of it. Surrounding development also contributes to overlooking, with some windows positioned closer to No. 120 than those at No. 110. The proposed large bedroom window would increase the field of view; however, the separation distance exceeds 25 metres, in line with the Council’s findings and guidance in the Stroud District Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance. Despite the elevated position of the appeal property, the combination of this distance, the siting of No. 110 and the established context means the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy over and above the existing situation. 15. While the higher land level of the appeal property and additional built form could influence perceptions of enclosure, this must be assessed within the existing context with No. 120 bound by houses, albeit these, like the appeal property are generally located a significant distance from it. Although the rear elevation would increase in height, the inclusion of a flat roof element limits overall bulk and massing. Furthermore, the varied pattern of development along Kingscourt Lane, influenced by its steep topography, means the proposal would not appear unduly dominant or oppressive. Some change to outlook is inevitable; however, due to the retained separation distance and existing spatial relationships, the outlook from No. 120 would remain sufficiently open and would not be replaced by an unacceptably imposing form of development. Given the substantial separation distance, the proposal would not create a materially harmful sense of enclosure for the occupiers No. 120, whether viewed from the garden, patio or rear-facing rooms. 16. In relation to daylight and overshadowing, no technical evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would result in a significant or unacceptable loss of light to habitable rooms or private amenity spaces. Taking into account significant distance between the properties and the modest increase in height proposed, the scheme would not result a harmful loss of light to the property. 17. The proposal as submitted does not include any form of balcony or external platform. The assessment must therefore be based on the development as proposed rather than speculative future alterations. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that controlling potential future changes may be appropriate in the interests of safeguarding neighbouring living conditions. 18. In this regard, any material alteration to the opening, including the formation of a balcony or similar structure, would likely require planning permission in its own Appeal Decision 6004470 5 right. Moreover, a condition restricting the use of the flat roof as a terrace or amenity space could ensure that opportunities for elevated overlooking are appropriately controlled. With regard to the potential impact of the scheme upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers, the Council concluded that the proposal would not result in unacceptable residential amenity impacts and for the reasons given above, I find no compelling reason to come to a different conclusion on this matter. 19. The presence of rooflights serving habitable rooms is not uncommon, particularly within roof spaces and upper storeys, and can provide light and ventilation. In this case, the proposed rooflights would afford natural light to the bedroom within the roof. The absence of a conventional vertical window does not, in itself, render the accommodation unacceptable, particularly where the room benefits from sufficient headroom and functional layout which it would in this instance. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the internal arrangements would create an unacceptable living environment for the occupiers. 20. The appeal site is located within the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Redborough Common SAC core catchment area. Furthermore, the site is located within the Zone of Influence of the Severn Estuary SAC. However, as the scheme would not involve new residential growth the scheme would not be required to provide mitigation as set out in the Mitigation Strategies for the three SAC’s. 21. Concerns were raised by Environmental Health concerning the noise from the proposed air source heat pump. Whilst the appellant has provided details of what air source heat pump they intend to use; I have limited information regarding whether this would be appropriate in this residential context. The noise from one could cause disturbance to nearby occupiers and in the interests of preserving the living conditions of nearby occupiers a condition requiring the approval of the details would be necessary in this instance. 22. The appeal site is located close to but outside of the Cotswold National Landscape (NL). Given that I have determined that the scheme would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and because the scheme is an extension to a dwelling within a built-up area, the development would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the setting of the NL. Overall, the natural beauty of the NL would be conserved. 23. A Protected Species Report for Bats and Nesting Bird and Nocturnal Bat Survey Report by Cotswold Environmental was submitted with the application and this confirmed that there were no bats or evidence of bats within the appeal property and that the building was considered to hold low potential for roosting bats. Accordingly, based on the submitted evidence, the proposed development would not cause harm to a protected species, provided the recommendations within the survey are adhered to during construction which is a matter that could be secured by condition. Conditions 24. Further to the statutory commencement condition and condition requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Appeal Decision 6004470 6 25. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby occupiers a condition ensuring the flat roof to the rear of the extended dwelling is not used as a balcony or roof terrace is necessary and that details of the air source heat pump are approved. 26. In the interests of ensuring protected species are not harmed during construction a condition requiring works are undertaken in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Protected Species Report for Bats and Nesting Birds and Nocturnal Bat Survey Report is necessary. I have varied the wording of this condition to remove reference to the agreement in principle of the local planning authority prior to determination as this is not necessary. Conclusion 27. The proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley INSPECTOR