Demolition of chimney, and construction of single storey rear and side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2026 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005540 200 Melton Road, Stanton on the Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BP  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 Rajinder Sanghera against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council.  The application Ref is 25/01757/FUL.  The development proposed is demolition of chimney, and construction of single storey rear and side extension. This decision is issued in accordance with section 56 (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that issued on 1 June 2026. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of chimney, and construction of single storey rear and side extension at 200 Melton Road, Stanton on the Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01757/FUL, 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25/200MRS/02d and 25/200MRS/04d. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development set out above from the decision notice. This was agreed in writing by the Council and the appellant, and the application was determined on that basis. Main Issue 3. The parties have agreed that the proposal would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt and based on the evidence before me, I agree. 4. Considering this, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The site lies within a ribbon of development that extends along the west side of the busy A606, Melton Road, which comprises detached residential properties of varied scale and design, many of which appear to have been extended and/or altered. The long, continuous built-up west side of Melton Road markedly contrasts Appeal Decision 6005540 2 with the large agricultural fields on the east side which have a notably open and rural character. 6. The host property is a bungalow that has been extended and remodelled. The proposed single storey extension would project from the existing rear elevation of the host property. The use of render and large areas of glazing would reflect the appearance of the existing dwelling which, together with the low height of its flat roof, would ensure that the proposal is in keeping with, and subservient to, the host property. I note that the Council has not raised concerns in this regard. 7. Due to the significant set back from the road and the screening afforded by a large outbuilding along the side boundary, the proposal would only be glimpsed when passing the driveway to the site, thus ensuring that it would not be readily visible in public views. Furthermore, any private views from adjoining properties would be limited as they would be filtered through the mature hedges and trees along the side and rear boundaries. In the context of the ribbon of development and the varied street scene, the proposal would not appear prominent or incongruous. Consequently, due to its minimal effect, it would not be contrary to local characteristics and would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside. 8. The proposal, in combination with previous extensions to the property, would increase the size of the dwelling by significantly more than 50% of the volume of the original building. Thus, it would be contrary to the guidance set out at C6.7 of the Rushcliffe Design Code (2025). Such guidance recognises that bulk, scale, massing or design could render a proposal unacceptable and seeks to avoid extensions resulting in an urbanising effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. As I have found, for the foregoing reasons, that the proposed extension would not harm character and appearance and any increase in the urbanising effect of the existing enlarged and altered dwelling would be minimal it would not conflict with the purposes of this guidance even though it would exceed the size specification. 9. In conclusion, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would, therefore, accord with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1, December 2014, and Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2, October 2019, which together, amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Conditions 10. In addition to the standard time limit condition limiting the lifespan of the planning permission I have also, in the interests of certainty, attached conditions specifying the approved plans. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR