Erection of a part two storey, part first floor extension to side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 May 2026 by J Buxton BA(Hons) DipArch ARB RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005240 84 Wolsingham Drive, Thornaby TS17 9EQ • 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 & Mrs A Dougan against the decision of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council. • The application reference is 25/2129/FUL. • The development proposed is erection of a part two storey, part first floor extension to side. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of part two storey, part first floor extension to side at 84 Wolsingham Drive, Thornaby TS17 9EQ in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/2129/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, 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 numbers: 2025-40 Location Plan; 2025-40/03C Site Layout Plan as Existing & Proposed; 2025-40/02E Ground & First Floor Plans as Proposed. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. In the banner heading above and my formal decision, I have used the description of development taken from the Council’s decision notice, as opposed to the application form, as it more accurately describes that for which permission is sought. However, in doing this I have also had full regard in my reasoning to the description on the application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached house located on Wolsingham Drive. It is constructed of brick with a concrete tiled roof and flat-roofed dormer windows on each roof slope. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, comprising a mix of house types of varied forms and detailing, which includes dormer bungalows and two-storey dwellings. The different house types in the area are generally grouped together in small clusters. Appeal Decision 6005240 2 5. The appeal proposal would comprise a side extension, including new living accommodation to the front of the existing kitchen at ground floor and a new bedroom with ensuite at first floor level. The proposed external wall would be a continuation of the existing kitchen wall along the side boundary of the property. 6. The proposed extension would achieve a noticeable set back from the existing front elevation at first floor, as well as a break in the ridgeline with the main dwelling. Taken together, these factors would ensure that the proposal would be suitably sited and proportioned to appear subservient to the host dwelling and would not result in an over-dominant addition when viewed in relation to either the existing property or neighbouring dwellings. It has been designed with appropriate regard to the character and context of the surrounding area and as such would integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling and wider street scene. 7. During my site visit I observed that other properties have been extended within the original housing development. These extensions vary in design, but it was evident that there are both single and two storey extensions within the vicinity of the appeal site. Many of these properties have been extended to their site boundary, resulting in an eclectic and varied street scene and as a result, there is no uniform pattern of spacing or prevailing built form. 8. The Council’s Householder Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), amongst other things, advises, that proposals for domestic extensions will be supported where they are in keeping with the property and the street scene in terms of style, proportion and materials, and where they avoid significant loss of privacy and amenity for neighbouring properties. In this case, the design draws on the characteristics of the original building, including a roof form that reflects its pitch, whilst incorporating a set-back to the front elevation and a reduced ridge height below that of the main roof. These design measures reduce the perceived massing of the extension, mitigate its visual impact, and maintain a clear visual hierarchy with the host dwelling. 9. Similarly, in the context of the pattern of development along the road, with an acceptable set and break in the ridgeline, any potential future terracing effect within part of the streetscene would be negligible. Furthermore, although the proposed extension would not maintain a 1-metre gap to the side boundary, the SPD allows for flexibility where site-specific circumstances justify a departure from this guideline. In this case, the existing ground floor kitchen already extends to the boundary, and the proposal would therefore reflect an established relationship within the site. In these circumstances, and even though the proposal would not maintain the separation distance referred to in the SPD, it would not undermine the objectives of that guidance and is acceptable in this regard. 10. The reliance on potential future development as a basis for refusal places undue with on hypothetical scenarios rather than the evidence. Each application must be determined on its own merits, and as such reasoning does not, in itself, justify withholding planning permission for the proposal before me. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, I find that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore accord with Policies SD3 and SD8 of the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Local Plan (2019) which, amongst Appeal Decision 6005240 3 other things, seek to ensure that development is designed to the highest possible standard and in keeping with the property and street scene. Conditions 12. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have also, in the interests of certainty, attached a condition specifying the approved plans. A condition to secure that the proposed external materials match those of the original building or as those shown on the approved plans, is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Conclusion 13. The proposed development would accord with the development plan, and there are no material considerations to lead me to determine the appeal other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed. J Buxton INSPECTOR