2 storey extension to side and new vehicular access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2026 by P Barton BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005418 91 Staplers Road, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 2DG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms Maggie Read against the decision of Isle of Wight Council. • The application Ref is 25/01743/HOU. • The development proposed is 2 storey extension to side and new vehicular access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the new vehicular access. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to the 2-storey side extension at 91 Staplers Road, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 2DG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01743/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and 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 2-storey side extension hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 32-2025-3 Rev A Dec 2025 ‘Proposed Extension. Floor Plans & Elevations as Proposed’. 3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed at 1 st floor level on the western elevation of the extension hereby permitted. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council has sought to make a split decision. In the interests of certainty, I have based my assessment on the proposed development originally applied for. 4. The Council has only raised substantive concerns with regards to the proposed new vehicular access and not in reference to the 2-storey side extension. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s position with respect to the 2-storey side extension. I am satisfied that the vehicular access is clearly severable from the side extension, as it is physically and functionally independent. Therefore, under section 79(1)(b) of the Act, I have the power to issue a split decision in this case. Appeal Decision 6005418 2 5. A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. The policy emphasis of the parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not changed. As a result, I have not sought comments on the new version of the Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by taking this approach. 6. The Island Plan Core Strategy March 2012 (CS) referred to in the decision notice has been superseded by the Island Planning Strategy September 2026 (PS), which was adopted on the 16 September 2026. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the PS in the context of the appeal. 7. Appeal decisions must be based on the policies from the development plan prevailing at the time of determination. Policies referred to in the reason for refusal from the CS are no longer relevant and are disregarded. 8. It has been suggested that the surfacing of the front garden with permeable materials is permitted development. However, it is not for me, under a section 78 appeal, to determine whether this would comply with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. I am required to consider the proposed scheme before me as a whole. 9. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s disability. Main Issue 10. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 11. 91 Staplers Road is one half of a pair of semi-detached properties, which sits within a row of similar properties to the northern side of Staplers Road. Parking to these houses, including No. 91, is provided within rear garage courts with vehicular accesses at either end of the row. 12. Between these modest accesses is a sizeable length of highway with a wide grass verge containing street trees, and the semi-detached houses have open and predominantly grassed front gardens with an absence of off-street parking to these areas. I found these to be positive features that make a significant contribution to the open and verdant character and appearance of the area, which is reinforced by large areas of open grassland, with some trees, and a lack of parking to the frontages of the properties opposite. 13. In addition to the replacement of part of No. 91’s current front garden with a hardstanding drive, the proposal would involve cutting through the grass verge to facilitate a vehicular access to the proposed off-street parking spaces. This would result in the permanent loss of the grass verge affected, eroding the soft landscaped character of the area. This material adverse effect on the verdant street scene would be further compounded by the parking of vehicles on the drive to the front of No. 91, in an elevated position, creating a stark contrast to the harmonious nature of this stretch of Staplers Road. Appeal Decision 6005418 3 14. Although the topography of the verge would reduce the visual impact of the access when viewed from a distance along Staplers Road, it would still be prominent when passing the site and from nearby properties. 15. A claim made by the appellant that the verge is broken 11 times by vehicular and footpath accesses along a 380m section of Staplers Road between Fairmount Drive and Mayfield Drive has not been challenged by the Council. Nevertheless, I saw that the vehicular accesses predominantly consist of a shared arrangement between properties that minimises the overall number and their presence has not swayed me from my findings on this main issue. 16. Although it is contended by the appellant that the front garden to No. 91 could be hard surfaced without the need for planning permission, the proposal includes the access off Staplers Road that would enable vehicles to park on this frontage, which would not otherwise occur. Consequently, the proposed development would have a more harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area compared to this fallback and it does not indicate I should reach a different conclusion. 17. For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with PS Policy C1, which requires development proposals to, amongst other things, respect and enhance the character of the area through their layout and design. Other Matters 18. I recognise that the appeal scheme seeks more convenient parking to the front of the dwelling compared to the existing provision within the nearby garage court, particularly if it were to be used by a person with a disability or limited mobility. However, there is no compelling argument before me that the existing garage is such a distance, and the route to the house is not suitable, that it represents a remote and difficult parking arrangement. 19. The ability to provide 2 parking spaces, electric vehicle charging and disabled access parking, as well as the retention of existing street trees do not outweigh my concerns surrounding the effect of this aspect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area. 20. Benefits to pedestrian safety and accessibility including the relocation of an existing pedestrian footway, installation of tactile paving and a dropped kerb have been requested by Island Roads but there is no formal correspondence before me outlining this. Nevertheless, due to the scale and nature of these works, I attribute it moderate weight in the planning balance. 21. Whilst consistency in the planning process is important and like cases should be decided in a like manner, it is important to reiterate that each case is determined on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence, particularly in relation to matters of character and appearance. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments on the Council’s concerns surrounding a precedent being set, but I have not found this to be a determinative factor in this case. 22. A lack of harm or policy compliance with regards to flood risk, highway safety, heritage assets, designated green space, and street trees would have a neutral Appeal Decision 6005418 4 effect which weigh neither for nor against the proposal. Moreover, a lack of objections from neighbours does not equate to a lack of harm. Planning Balance 23. There is consistency between PS Policy C1, and national decision-making policy DP3 of the Framework, which seeks proposals that respond to their context, so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Consequently, the proposed vehicular access would fail to comply with one of the national-decision making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances, as set out in policy S4(2)(c). In this instance, I have found that the benefits of approving the vehicular access would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision- making policies in the Framework. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in policy S4 of the Framework does not apply. Conditions 24. With regards to the proposed 2-storey side extension, and in addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan, as this provides certainty. A condition is also necessary to control the provision of any additional windows at first floor level on the western elevation of the extension in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Conclusion 25. The appeal scheme includes two different elements. Having had regard to the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, I dismiss the appeal in respect of the new vehicular access. However, I allow the appeal in respect of the 2-storey side extension. P Barton INSPECTOR