Side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 April 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005915 31 Talboys Walk, Tetbury, Gloucestershire GL8 8YU • 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 Liam Risby Private Individual against the decision of Cotswold District Council. • The application Ref is 25/03465/FUL. • The development proposed is side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The reasons for refusal refer to the first-floor extension and fence implying that the scheme’s other elements are acceptable. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation focuses on the same. The appellant has confirmed the use of render is a typing error. The side south elevation would be in Bradstone to match the existing dwelling. No one would be prejudiced by me considering the scheme as such given that if the proposal were acceptable, materials could be conditioned. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the living conditions of the occupants of Numbers 27 and 29 Talboys Walk (No.27 and No.29) with particular regard to outlook and b) the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation Living Conditions 5. The side elevation of the appeal property faces towards No. 27 and No. 29. Land levels rise towards the appeal site and therefore the neighbouring properties are set slightly lower. The dwellings already have a close relationship with the existing single storey garage on the appeal site running parallel to the boundary fencing of No. 29 and views of the appeal property are somewhat dominating from each of the neighbouring dwellings. Appeal Decision 6005915 2 6. The proposal would introduce a first-floor extension above the existing garage. The appeal property is situated very close to the rear corner of the garden of No. 27. The erection of a second storey on top of the garage would substantially worsen an arrangement that is already intimate. It would introduce a prominent block for users of the rear garden and conservatory of No. 27 which would be overbearing. 7. The wall of the extension would be largely featureless. The proposal would be situated along a substantial length of the rear boundary of No. 29. The somewhat looming effect of the height, proximity and run of the extension would appear overbearing to users of the rear garden of No.29. Its scale and plainness would make the experience of the garden oppressive and garner a strong sense of enclosure, detrimentally affecting the outlook therefrom. The same can be said for the outlook experienced from the rear windows and conservatory of No.29. 8. The appellant proposes a trade-off between the existing arrangement where there is an upper floor side window that has clear views to the gardens and conservatories of No. 27 and No. 29 and the second floor extension. However, the two situations are not comparable, and both affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants in different ways. Any potential betterment in terms of privacy would not justify the harm that would be caused to outlook. 9. The proposal would therefore cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. 27 and No. 29. It would thus be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2018 (LP) and Policy 2 of the Tetbury and Tetbury Upton Neighbourhood Plan 2017 (NP). These are concerned with the Cotswold Design Code and respecting the amenity of dwellings amongst other things. Character and Appearance 10. The detached appeal dwelling is one of the last properties on Talboys Walk. It borders a footpath to one side with green space beyond. Properties on Talboys Walk and within the estate are finished in similar materials. Many have part gable frontages which unifies the area architecturally. Housing designs are however varied and therefore there is not a sense of defining uniformity between them. 11. The extension would be gable fronted with a lower height than the existing property. The existing garage protrudes slightly forward. The extension would do the same. The scale of the extension and matching roof form would not compete for dominance with the existing dwelling. Combining the use of matching materials with a subservient design that is sympathetic to the existing property, the first-floor extension would reflect the character and appearance of the area. 12. The proposal also includes the erection of front boundary fencing. This would not extend across the entire frontage but would be in the corner alongside the access from the residential estate to the footpath. Due to the position of buildings on Talboys Walk, the short section of fencing would not be clearly visible from within the estate. It would not therefore have the same stark sense of enclosure that would be created if it were to be further within the estate. For these reasons, the proposed fencing that would only part enclose the frontage would be acceptable. 13. The proposal as a whole would therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policies EN1, EN2 and EN4 of the LP and Policy 2 of the NP. These are concerned with development complementing the character of an area amongst other things. Appeal Decision 6005915 3 Other Matters 14. The alleged harm that the fencing would reduce natural surveillance has been rolled into the overall commentary for character and appearance matters. I have not been provided with any additional information or any evidence of security issues in the area. Furthermore, I have not been presented with any policies that would specifically address this matter. Paragraph 96 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) states that planning decisions should aim to achieve places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion. 15. The appeal property sits opposite several detached dwellings that are set back from the turning space that is between the properties. There is a street light close to the appeal site and the footpath. Combined with the dwelling’s location close to others and the position of the proposed fencing along the frontage, I remain to be convinced that it would cause harm to security or specifically the fear/instance of crime. There is therefore nothing sufficiently compelling to suggest that the proposal would not be safe in accordance with paragraph 96 of The Framework. 16. Paragraph 189 of The Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. I am aware of the duty to further the purposes of preserving and enhancing their special qualities. The proposal would meet these requirements given the scale, design and location of the proposed works in an otherwise densely built-up area. This is the same conclusion that the Council came to on this matter. 17. The absence of some harm with regard to light, noise, disturbance or air pollution would be neutral in any balance of considerations. The personal benefits of the scheme would be limited and are not sufficiently compelling to carry more than limited weight. Economic matters would be time limited in their effect and be considered similarly. Conclusion and Recommendation 18. A lack of harm relating to character and appearance would be neutral and thus incapable of weighing in favour of the appeal scheme. I have found that there would be harm regarding living conditions which would result in conflict with the development plan. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. For that reason, I recommend the appeal is dismissed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR