Two storey extension to rear of house, and single storey extension to side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2026 by Richard Snow BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006050 Seven Stars Farm, Stock Lane, Marchington Woodlands, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire ST14 8PA  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 Price & Ms Lindop against the decision of East Staffordshire Borough Council.  The application Ref is P/2025/00271.  The development proposed is two storey extension to rear of house, and single storey extension to side. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and the rural character of the surroundings. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a traditional, two storey detached red-bricked dwelling located in rural surroundings. A previous two-storey extension has added considerably to the size of the original property. A large, detached brick outbuilding is located close to the property, and a further building of corrugated sheet construction is sited further south, adjacent to the roadside hedge. 4. The proposal provides for a two-storey extension beyond the rear wall of the existing extension. Ridge and eaves heights would be marginally below, and side walls marginally recessed, from those of the existing extension. A single-storey side extension is proposed to the south-west elevation incorporating a recessed porch which would become the principal entrance to the house. The plans show alterations to fenestration on the existing north-east, south-west and north-west elevations. 5. Cumulatively, the existing and proposed two-storey extensions are not of modest size and would disproportionately add to the original property, effectively quadrupling its depth. The proposed rear extension would add substantial additional bulk to the property and be visible in views over and around the adjacent outbuilding. The cumulative size of the extensions would harm the traditional vernacular character of the original dwelling. Appeal Decision 6006050 2 6. The proposed rear extension would be visible in views from the south-east and particularly from along Tinker’s Lane to its junction with Stock Lane. The contrasting architectural styles of the original, existing and proposed dwelling would create a disjointed appearance, further detracting from its original character and identity. 7. The proposed single storey side extension would be seen set against the mass of the existing extension and this, coupled with its limited size, means it would not detract from the character of the property to the same extent. However, the dominant size of the rear extension would detract from the otherwise generally open and pleasant rural surroundings, adding to the mass of built form on this prominent corner site and harming its rural character. 8. The appellants draw my attention to examples of other extensions to nearby properties granted planning permission by the council and advance these as precedents which should weigh in favour of the appeal proposal. I took the opportunity to view both, at Woodstock Farm and Lower Stock Lane Farm, from the nearest public roads, during my site visit. I note from the evidence, that both applications were determined under comparable development plan policies and each has resulted in large extensions to the original dwellings. The two-storey rear extension at Woodstock Farm is highly prominent in views from Tinker’s Lane. Lower Stock Lane Farm is less prominent in public views than the appeal property due to the distance from the road and intervening outbuildings. Its two-storey rear extension is also partially screened by the existing dwelling. I agree, however, that both examples appear broadly comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of the scale of development involved. The full reasoning why these other extensions were considered policy compliant is not clear from the council’s reports. These nearby comparable examples constitute a material consideration in favour of the appeal. 9. However, I do not consider that these other examples should justify a further erosion of the rural character of the area that would arise from the appeal proposal. I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits and found it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host property and the character of the rural surroundings. 10. Taking all of the above into account, I find that because of the cumulative size, design and mass of the existing and proposed two-storey extensions, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the property and the rural character of the area. As such, it conflicts with Policies SP1, SP24, DP1, DP3 and SP8 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan (2012-2031) and Policies DP1 and H3 of the Marchington Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that extensions to dwellings in the open countryside are modest in relation to the original dwelling, retain its identity, reinforce distinctiveness, and protect local character. Other Matters 11. The appellants have provided details of an alternative scheme of development consisting of two single-storey side extensions to the property and advocate this as a realistic fallback position (‘the fallback scheme’). I note that having received no objections to an application for the fallback scheme made pursuant to condition A4(2) of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Appeal Decision 6006050 3 Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the council confirmed that its prior approval was not required. In doing so, the council confirmed that the development is compliant with the conditions and limitations of the GPDO and would be lawful. 12. In Schneck v SSHCLG & West Berkshire DC [2022] EWHC 3335 (Admin) the Courts held that the prospect of the fallback position has to be only more than a merely theoretical prospect to form a material consideration in decision making. The appellants advance the fallback scheme as a realistic prospect and that I should compare the effect of the appeal proposal against the effect of what other development could lawfully take place. 13. However, it would be possible to construct both the fallback scheme and the proposed two-storey rear extension of the appeal scheme. I must, therefore, not only consider the fallback scheme as an alternative development to the appeal proposal, but also as a combined scheme. Taken together, the extensions would have a greater impact on the appearance of the property and character of the wider area than the appeal proposal alone. The appellants’ reasoning that the fallback scheme is a less desirable development than that which forms the basis of the appeal is accordingly negated by the ability to construct this combination of the two schemes. 14. Furthermore, in their appeal submissions, the appellants state that having considered the fallback scheme as an option, a decision was made not to proceed with it for 6 reasons. This being the case, irrespective of my concerns about the cumulative impact of the combined scheme, I am also not satisfied that there is more than a merely theoretical prospect of the fallback scheme being constructed. This significantly limits the weight that I can attach to it as a fallback position. 15. Taking the above into account, the appellants’ submissions do not provide convincing reasons why I should allow this appeal. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Snow INSPECTOR