Single storey rear extension, dormer to rear and canopy to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:13 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004852 22 Maple Grove, York YO10 4EH • 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 Sohail Nisar against the decision of the City of York Council. • The application Ref is 25/01886/FUL. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension, dormer to rear and canopy to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed rear dormer and front canopy. 2. However, the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey rear extension and planning permission is granted for erection of a single storey rear extension at 22 Maple Grove, York YO10 4EH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01886/FUL and the plans submitted with it, insofar as they relate to the proposed single storey rear extension subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The external materials of the single storey rear extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the location and site plans and proposed plans and elevations insofar as they relate to the proposed single storey rear extension. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal building is a two storey semi-detached dwelling. Maple Grove is lined with dwellings of a similar form and design. Permission was granted for a 2 storey side extension and single storey rear extension in 2021. That side extension has been implemented and continued the hipped roof form but has resulted in some loss in symmetry on the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Other dwellings in Maple Appeal Decision 6004852 2 Grove have been the subject of alterations and additions, including hip to gable roof conversions, rear dormer windows and 2 storey side extensions. 5. The proposed rear dormer would have rooflights and would be seen in part from Maple Grove, making it visible as a prominent uncharacteristic feature in the street scene. The appellant has advised that the existing roof line extends across the full width of the pair of semi-detached dwellings as a continuous hip, which is a feature that is not replicated elsewhere in Maple Grove and the proposal seeks to rationalise the roof form in a manner more consistent with neighbours. However, the visible part of the dormer facing Maple Grove would further harm the symmetry of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Although there are examples of front canopies in Maple Grove, the majority of dwellings have retained the architectural character of their front elevations without such an addition. 6. The appellant submits that a realistic fall-back position exists, as a rear dormer could be added to the building under permitted development rights. However, those rights are subject to limitations. I consider that such a fall-back position would not justify the harmful alterations to the character and appearance of the front elevation of the building which are proposed. 7. Turning to the proposed rear extension, the Council considers that it is well designed and would have no harmful effect on the amenity of neighbours. I see no reason to disagree as it would only project for around 2.6 metres towards the rear garden and would be single storey, with an eave’s height of approximately 2.5 metres. 8. I find that the proposed rear dormer and front canopy would harm the character and appearance of the building and street scene. Those parts of the proposal would therefore conflict with the City of York Local Plan policies D1 and D11 and guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for House Extensions and Alterations which, amongst other things, require development to respect its architectural context in scale and form. Conclusion 9. The proposed rear dormer and front canopy should be dismissed as they conflict with the development plan as a whole. However, the proposed rear extension should be allowed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR